The Functions of Police in Modern - 44-398

14 P ar rI *
The Futtcrion of the Police
2
The Functionsof
Policein Modern
Socieqr
EgonBittner
piece, Egort Bittner cliscttsses
ht this clcLssic
tlrc origins of nrcdent policirtg, identifies tlrc
source of sonte o/- policing's recun'ing crises
(such as brtttality, con'ulttiort, and disu'iutirtiation), and presents what lte seesas the core
functions of policirtg-v,hat distinguislrcspolice bu.sinessfront otlrcr pttblic and private actit,ities. More than artvl/tittg else, /rc ergues,
v,that separates tlrc police front otlrct'ittstitutions is tlrcir capacity and license to use force,
including deadly force. In a way, ilis is just
cot't7t'nonsense and falls in that categlrcry of
tlings tJtAt "ever1,bod1t
knov,s"-after all, u,ho
does not realize that the police have guns,
sticks,handcuffs, artd fast cars and the atilhorit1' to use tlzernagainst us? But tlrc police perfonn other "public seruice" duties as v,ell, Iiading nlany conulrcntators to entpltasize tlrc
sinilarities between police vtork and social
v , or k . B it t ner w a n l s u s a g a i n s t th i s a n d s i ni l lar analogies and Ltrgesus to keep the corefuntion of policing square$, in nilnd. You slrculd
be v,anzed, though, that |rc.does so in a ven)
rigorous and clrullenging style which you nlay
this chapter slov,ly and
find difficult-read
carefully to get the full benefit.
Popular ConceptionsAbout the
Character of PoliceVork
Tn"
abandonment of the norm-derivative
approach to the definition of the role of the
police in modern societv immediately directs
attention to a level of social reality that is unrelated to the ideal formulations. Whereas in
terms of these formulations police activity
derives its meaning from the objectives of upholding the lar.r,,we find that in realitv certain
meaning features are associated with police
work that are largely independent of the obj ecti ves. That i s, pol i ce w ork i s general l v
vierved as having certain character traits we
takerfor granted, and which control deaiings
betw een pol i cemen and ci ti zens, on both
sides.Though we are lacking in adequate evidence about these matters, the percei rred
traits we r.rtillpresently discuss are universally accepted as present and the recognition
of thei r presenceconsti tutes a real i sti c constraint on what is expected of the police and
how policemen actually conduct themselves.
It i s i mportant to emphasi ze that even w hi l e
some of these i deas and atti tudes are uncri ti far trom
cally inherited from the past the1,21-s
bei ng total l v devoi d of real i sm. In the pol i ce
literatr-rrethese matters are typicallv treated
under ei ther euphemi sti c or cvni cal gl osses.
The reason for this evasion is simple, the Sunday school vocabularryrve are forced to empl oy rvhi l e tal ki ng about anv occupati onal
pursuit as dignified, serious, and necessary
forces us from dealing realistically u'ith the
facts and from being candid about opinion.
Among the traits of character that are
commonly perceived as associated with police work, and which thus constitute in part
the social reality within which the work has
to be done, the follor,r'ingthree are of cardinal
importance.
1. Police work is a tainted occupation. The
origins of the stigma are buried in the distant
past and while much has been said and done
to erase it, these efforts have been totallv unsuccessful. Medieval watchmen, recruited
from among the ranks of destitute and subject to satirical por[ravals, were perceived to
belong to the world of shadows they were
supposed to contain.l During the period of
the absol ute monarchy the pol i ce came to
represent the underground aspects of tyrannv and political repression, and thev were
despised and feared even by those who ostensibly benefitted From their services. No one
can say how much of the old attitude lives on;
some of it probably seeps into modern consci ousness from the conti nued readi ng of
nineteenth century romantic literature of the
Victor Hugo varietv. And it cannot be ne-
slected that tl
iolitv avidlr,'
asainst t he Pc
.u".t if the P
evoke the imz
still be vier'vec
least . For in
character wht
m ir ed, and r
work can enti
is something
slaver.2Becat
rimeters of or
their PreSertc,
ness and cha
spare the rest
t ions wit h t ht
danger ous, P
have powers :
Their interest
the untoward
mystery and c
sider the thot
sight of polic,
they go to do
no stomach f
experience a
proached by
which the aw
no adequate p
in particular
expect and th
justified, reas
dane level, th
tion that the I
the addition o
position in sc
on a variety o
reason for di
from the sustr
against evil ca
t he ideals t ht
make the mor
lice work is a
quirements fo
are poorly ed
eraltze from :
come to their
a whole.
It is impor
very little to ,
attitudes. In p
J '
m the objectives of upI that in reality certain
rssociatedwith police
rdependent of the ob:e work is generally
in character traits we
'hich control dealines
nd ci ti ze n s, on boih
cking in adequate evirtters, the perceived
y discuss are univerrt and the recognition
itutes a realistic con:ted of the police and
, c ond u ct th em s elv es .
asize that even while
attitudes are uncritipast they are far from
- eal i sm.In t he polic e
are tvpicallv treated
ic or cvnical glosses.
on is si mp l e, t he S unlve are forced to emut an v o ccupat ional
rioLrs,and necessarv
r eal i sti ca l ly i, r ' it h t h- e
ndid about opinion.
'
character that are
associated with pous constitute in part
which the work has
three are of cardinal
rted occupation. The
buried in the distant
; been said and done
rave been totally un'atchmen, recruited
rf destitute and sub[s, were perceived to
shadows they were
ruring the period of
t he p o l i ce c am e t o
und aspects of tvr;sion, and they were
bv those who osten:ir services. No one
old attitude lives on;
ls into modern conntinued reading of
ntic literature of the
rd it cannot be ne-
electedthat the mythology of the democratic
iolity avidlv recounts the heroic combat
Ls,urnttthe police agents of the old order. But
.i"r if the police officer of today did not
evoke the images of the past at all, he would
still be viewed with mixed feelings, to say the
least. For in modern folklore, too, he is a
characterwho is ambivalently feared and admired, and no amount of public relations
work can entirely abolish the sensethat there
is something of the dragon in the dragonslayer.zBecause they are posted on the perimeters of order and justice in the hope that
their presence will deter the forces of darkness and chaos, because thev are meant to
sparethe rest of the people direct confr^ontati,onswith the dreadful, perverse, lurid, and
dangerous, police officers are perceived to
have powers and secrets no one else shares.
Their interest in and competence to deal ivith
the untoward surrounds their activities with
mysterv and distrust. One needs only to consider the thoughts that come to mind at the
sight of policemen moving into action: here
they go to do something the rest of us have
no stomach forl And most people naturally
experiencea slight tinge of panic when approached by u policeman, a feeling against
which the awareness of innocence provides
no adequateprotection. Indeed, the innocent
in particular typically do not know what to
expect and thus have added, even when unjustified, reasons for fear. On a more mundane level, the mixture of fear and fascination that the police elicit is ofren enriched by
the addition of contempt. Depending on one's
position in societll the contempt may draw
on a variety of sources. To some the leading
reason for disparaging police work derivei
from the suspicion that those who do battle
a€ainst evil cannot themselves live up fully to
the ideals they presumablv defend. Others
make the most of the circumstance that police work is a low-paying occupation, the requirements forwhich can be met bv men who
are.poorly educated. And some, finallyl generalize from accounts of police abuses lhut
come to their attention to the occupation as
a whole.
It is imporlant to nore that the police do
very little to discourage unfavorable public
attitudes. In point of fact, their senseof'beine
out of favor with a large segment of the society has led them to adopt a petulant stance
and turned them to courting the kinds of suppor[ rvhich, ironically, are nothing but a blatant insult. For the movement that is knor,r,n
by the slogan, "Support your local police," advocates the unleashing of a force of mindless
bullies to do societys dirty lvork. Indeed, if
there is still some doubt about the popular
perception of police work as a tainted occupation, it will surelv be laid to rest bv pointing
to those who, under the pretense of taking the
side of the police, implv that the institution
and its personnel are uniformly capable and
wiliing to act out the baser instincti inherent
in all of us.
In sum, the taint that attaches to police
work refers to the fact that policemen are
viewed as the fire it takes to fight fire, that
they in the natural course of their duties inflict harm, albeit deserved,and that their very
existence attests that the nobler aspirations
of mankind do not contain the means necessary to insure survival. But even as those necessitiesare accepted,those who accept them
seem to prefer to have no part in acting upon
them, and they enjoy the more than slightly
perverse pleasure of looking down on the police who take the responsibility of doing the
job.
2. Police work is not merely a tainted occupation. To draw a deiiberately remote analogy, the practice of medicine also has its dirty
and mysterious aspects.And characteristicalll,,
dealings with physicians also elicit a sense of
trepidated fascination. But in the case of
medicine, the repulsive aspects, relating to
the disease,pain, and death, are more than
compensated by other features, none of
which are present in police work. Of the compensatory features, one is of particular relevance to our concerns. No conceivable human interest could be opposed to fighting illness;in fact, it is meaningless to suppose that
one could have scruples in opposing disease.
But the evils the poiice are expected to fight
are of a radically different nature. Contrary
to the physician, the policeman is always opposed to some articulated or articulable human interest. To be sure, the police are, at
least in principle, opposed to only reprehensible interests or interest lacking in proper
justification. But even if one were to suppose
that the-vnever err in judging legitimacy-a
farfetched supposition, indeed-it would still
remain the case that police work can, with a
very feu, exceptions, accomplish something
f or s om e b o d y o n l y b v p ro c e e d i n g agai nst
someone else. It does not take sreat subtletv
of per c e p ti o n to re a l i z e th a t s ta n di ng betleen man and man locked in conflict inevitabh' involves profound moral ambi-euities.
Admittedlr; fer^,,of us are constantly mindful
of t he s a v i n g , " H e th a t i s w i th o u t s i n among
v ou, let h i rn c a s t th e fi rs t s to n e . . . :' b ut onl v
the police are explicitlv required to forget it.
T he t er m s o f th e i r ma n d a te a n d th e ci rcumstances of their practices do not affor"dthem
the leisur^eto reflect abor-rtthe deeper aspects
of conflicting moral claims. Not only are they
required to proceed forcefully against all appearances of transgression but they are also
expected to penetrate the appearance of innocence to discover craftiness hiding under
it s c loak. Wh i l e mo s t o f u s ri s k o n l y the opprobrium of foolishness by being charitable
or gullible, the policeman hazards violating
his dutv b1, letting generosity or respect for
appearances govern his decisions.
Though it is probably true that persons
who are characterologicallv inclined to see
moral and iegal problems in black and white
t end t o c h o o s e p o l i c e w o rk a s a vocati on
more often than others, it is imporlant to emphasize that the need to disregard complexity
is structurally built into the occupation. Only
after a suspect is arrested, or after an untoward course ofevents is stopped, is there time
to reflect on the merits of the decision, and,
typically, that reflective judgment is assigned
to other public officials. Though it is expected
that policemen will be judicious and skill will
guide them in the performance of their work,
it is foolish to expect that they could always
be both swift and subtle. Nor is it reasonable
to demand that they prevail, where they are
supposed to prevail, while hoping that they
will alwavs handle resistance gently. Since
the requiiement of quick and what'is often
euphem i s ti c a l l y c a l l e d a g g re s s i v e a cti on i s
difficult to reconcile with error-free nerformance, police work, by its very ,,itr.", is
doomed to be often unjust and offensive to
s om eone . U n d e r th e d u a l p re s s u re to " be
right" and to "do something," policemen are
often in a position that is compromised even
before tl-reyact.3
In sum, the fact that pol i cemen are required to deal r.r,ithmatters involving subtle
human confl i cts and profound l egal an d
moral questi ons, rvi thout bei ng al l orved t o
give the subtleties and profundities anvwhere
near the consi derati on thev desetw e,i nvest s
thei r acti vi ti es rvi th the character of cr udeness. Accordinglri the constant reminder
that officers should be wise, considerate, and
j ust, w i thout provi di ng them w i th opportr-r niti es to exerci se these vi rtues i s l i ttl e mor e
t h a n v a c r r o u ss e r m o n i z i n g .
3. The ecological distribution of police
rvork at the l evel of departmental l v dete r mined concentrations of deplovment, as well
as i n terms of the ori entati ons of i ndi vi dual
police officers, reflects a whole range of public prejr-rdices.That is, the police are more
likely to be found in places rvhere certain people live or congregate than in other parts of
the city. Though this pattern of manpower allocation is ordinarilv jr-rstified by references
to experientially established needs for police
sen,i ce,i t i nevi tabl y entai l s the consequen ce
that some persons will receive the dubious
benefit of extensivepolice scrutiny merely on
account of their membership in those social
groupings which individual social comparisons locate at the bottom of the heap.a Accordingly, it is not a paranoid distortion to say
that police activity is as much directed to who
a person is as to what he does.
As is well known, the prefer-red targets of
special police concern are some ethnic and
racial minorities, the poor living in urban
slums, and young people in general.s On the
face of it, this kind of focusing appears to be,
if not r^,,hollyunobjectionable, not u'ithout
warrant. Insofar as the above-mentioned segments of soci etv contri bute di sproporti on ately to the sum total of crime, and are more
iikeiy than others to engage in objectionable
conduct, thev would seem to require a higher
degree of surveiliance. In fact, this kind of
reasoning was basic to the very creation of
the pol i ce; for i t w as not assumed i ni ti al ly
that the police would enforce laws in the
broad sense,but that they would concentrate
on the control of individr-ral and collective
Y
tendencit
der issuir
"iangerc
frankly a
disavowe
self,the f
dark-con
anvthing
tisticallY
more lik,
viduallY,
of being I
as t hose
well-to-d
exactlYt
ing equa
rich-whi
the very
tainly nc
from po
ceivable
appear (
m ean t h
the poli<
inst it ut i
charactt
pect at io
with the
known
their rea
conside
In th
in maki
two tyP
they ac,
tion of t
at large
or igins,
cial pre
m em be
not mel
they al:
the pre'
t ions a
merely
m en w(
ters pr(
entirel'
cumstr
parlial
of pro
known
nething," policemen are
ar ls compromised even
T
J+
;f
.A
si6
that policemen are
re_ t4
-t a tte rs
i n v olv ing s ubt le ri
F
protound legal
and
?
nout being allowed
ro
pro tu n d i ties any v her e
'inuests
n, thel. deserve,
t t r e ch a rac t er of c r u_
lhe constant reminder
wise, considerate, and
I them with opportuni_
vlrtues is little more
ztng.
listri b u ti o n of polic e
lep a rrrn e nt ally det er _
t f d e p l o ym ent , as well
ntarions of individual
a wh o l e .ra ngeof p. r U_
t he p o l i ce ar e m or e
:es rvhere certain peo_
han i n ^ o th er par t s
of
- t ern o f ma npower _
aJ _
rstified b1' references
jh.ed needs for
police
ails th e co ns equenc e
rece l ve the dubious
: e s cru ti n l m er ely
on
r ship i n th os e s oc ial
lual social compari_
m of th e h eap. dA . _
roid distortion to say
ruch directed to who
doe s.
preferred targets of
re some ethnic and
tor living in urban
rn general.s On the
lslng appears to be,
nable, not without
ove-mentioned ses_
,ute disproportioi_
nme, and are more
ge in objectionabie
to require a higher
r ract, this kind of
re very creation of
initially
"assumed
torce
iar.r,sin th!
would concentrate
ual and collective
:l
tendencies towards transgression and disorder issuing from rvhat were referred to as the
" d a n g e ro u s c l a s s e s ." 6 w hat w as once a
frankly admitted bias is, howeve4 generally
disavowed in our times. That is, in and of itself, the fact that someone is voung, poor, and
dark-complexioned is not supposed to mean
anything whatsoever to a police officer. Statisiically considered, he might be said to be
more likely to run afoul of the lan', but individuallll all things being equal, his chances
of being left alone are sttpposedto be the same
a s th o s e o f s o m e o n e w ho i s mi ddl e-aged,
well-to-do, and fair-skinned. In fact, howevel
exactly the opposite is the case.All things being equal, the young-poor-black and the oldrich-white doing the very same things under
the very same circumstances will almost certainly not receive the same kind of treatment
from policemen. In fact, it is almost inconceivable that the two characters could ever
appear or do something in ways that would
mean the same thing to a poiiceman.T Nor is
the policeman merely expressingpersonal or
institutional prejudice by according the two
characters differential treatment. Public expectations insidiously instruct him to reckon
with these "factors." These facts are too i.vell
known to require detailed exposition, but
their reasons and conseqllences deserve brief
consideration.
In the first place, the police are not alone
in making invidious distinctions betr,veenthe
two types.8Indeed the differential treatment
they accord them reflects only the distribution of esteem, credit, and dessertsin societv
at iarge. Second, because of their or,r,nsocial
origins, many poiicemen tend to express social prejudices more emphatically than other
members of society.e Third, policemen are
not merely like evervbody else, only more so;
they also have special reasons for it. Because
the preponderant majority of police interventions are based on mere susnicion or on
merely tentative indicationr of risk, policemen would have to be expected to judge matters prejudicially even if they personally were
entirely free of prejudice. Under present circumstances, even the most completely impartial policeman who merely takes account
of probabiiities, as rhese piobabiliries are
known to him, will feel reasonablv iustified
in being more suspicious of the young-poorblack than of the old-rich-white, and once his
suspicions are aroused, in acting swiftly and
forcefully against the former while treating
the latter with reserve and deference. For as
the policeman calculates risk, the greater
hazard is iocated on the side of inaction in
one case, and on the side of unLvarranted action in the other.
That policemen deal differently with rypes
of people rvho are thought always to be "up
to somethi ng" than w i th p eopie who ar e
thought to have occasional lapses but can
otherwise be relied upon to conduct their affairs legally and honorabll,, does not come as
a surpri se, especi al l y i f one consider s t he
multiple social pressures that instruct the police not to let the unworthy get away with
anything and to treat the rest of the communi ty w i th consi derati on. B ut because t his is
the case, police work tends to have divisive
effects in society. While their existence and
work do not create cleavages, they do magnifu them in effect.
The police view of this matter is clear and
si mpl e-too si mpl e, perhaps. Their business
i s to control cri me and kee p t he peace. I f
there is some connection between social and
economic ineqr-rality,on the one hand, and
cri mi nal i tv and unrul i ness, on t he ot her
hand, this is not their concern. The problem
is not, howeveq,whether the police have anv
responsi bi l i ti es w i th regard t o social injustice. The problem is that by distributing surveillance and intervention selectively they
contribute to already existing tensions in society. T'hat the police are wideiy assumed to
be a partisan force in society is evident not
only in the attitudes of people who are exposed to greater scrutiny; just as the voungpoor-black expects unfavorable treatment, so
the old-rich-white expects special consideration from the policeman. And when two such
persons are in conflict, nothing wili provoke
the indignation of the "decent" citizen more
quickly than giving his word the same credence as the word of some "ne'er-do-well."l0
The three character traits of police work
discussed in the foregoing remarks-namely,
that it is a tainted occupation, that it recalls
for peremptory solutions for complex human
problems, and that it has, in virtue of its eco-
l ogic al dis t r ibu ti o n , a s o c i a l l y d i v i s i v e e f fect-are structural determinants. By this is
m eant m ainlv th a t th e c o m p l e x o f re a s o n s
and facts thev encomparr u." r,ot easily amenable to change. Thus, for example, though
the s t igm a t hat a tta c h e s to p o l i c e w o rk i s
often viera,ed as mereh, reflecting the frequentlv lslar grade and bungling personnel
that is currentlv available to the institution,
there are good reasons to expect that it u,ould
continue to plage a far better prepared and a
far better performing staff. For the stigma attaches not merely to the wavs policemen discharge their duties, but also to what thev have
to deal r v it h. S i m i l a rl l l w h i l e i t i s p ro b a b l y
true that moral naivete is a character trait of
persons who presentlv choose police ri,,orkers
their vocation, it is unlikelv that persons of
greater subtlety of perception would find it
easy to exercise their sensitirrity under present c ondit ions. F i n a l l y , e v e n th o u g h d i s cr im inat ow poli c i n g i s to s o me e x te n t tra c e able to personal bigotrl,, it also follows the
d i rec t ions of pub l i c p re s s u re ,rv h i c h , i n tu rn ,
is not wholly devoid of factual warrant.
T he dis c us s io n o f th e s tru c tu ra l c h a ra c te r
traits of police work was introduced bv saving that they were independent of the role
definitions formulated from the perspective
of the norm-derivative approach. The latter
interprets the meaning and adeqlracy of pol i c e pr oc edur e i n te rm s o f a s e t o f s i mp l y
stipulated ideal objectives. Naturally these
objectives are considered desirable; more importantll', howeve4 the values that determine
the desirability of the objectives are also used
in interpreting and judging the adequacy of
procedures employed to realize them. Contrary to this r.,u'ay
of making sense of police
work, the consideration of the structural
character traits was meant to drau'attention
to the fact that there attaches a senseto police
work that is not inferentiallv derived from
i d eals but is r oo te d i n w h a i i s c o mmo n l v
known about it. What is known about the police is, howeveq not merely a matter of more
or less correct information. Instead the common lore consists of a set of presuppositions
about the u,ay things are and have to be.
Thus, for instance, whatever people assume
to be generally tr-ue of the police will be the
thing that a particular act or event will be the
thi ng that a parti cul ar act or- even w i l l be
taken to exemplifi,r ff it is believed that police
work is crude, then u,ithin a vera' considerable range of relative degrees of subtlety,
whatever policemen will be seen doing will
be seen as crudeness.
In addition to the fact that the normative
approach represents an exercisein formal, legal inference, while the structural character
traits reflect an approach of informal, commonsense practicality the two differ in -vet
another and perhaps more important aspect.
The normati ve approach does not admi t the
possi bi l i ty that the pol i ce may i n fact, not be
ori ented to those obj ecti ves.C ontran,to thi s,
the senseof pol i ce acti vi ty that comes to the
fore ft'on-rthe consideration of the character
traits assigned to it by' popular opinion and
atti tude l eavesthe questi on open.l l
Since we cannot rely on abstract formulations that implicitly rrle out the possibilitv
that they might be entirely wrong, or far too
narrow, and since we cannot depend on a fabri c of commonsense ch:l racteri zati ons, w e
we
must turn to sti l l other sources.Of cor-rrse,
can no more forget the i mportance of the
popularly perceived character traits than r.ve
can forget the formr-rlasof the official mandate. To advance further in our quest for a
real i sti c defi ni ti on of the pol i ce rol e, l ve must
now turn to the revieu, of certain historical
materi al s that r.r,i l l show how the pol i ce
moved into the position in rvhich they find
themselvestoday. On the basis of this review,
in addition to what \.vasproposed thus far, we
will be able to formr,rlatean explicit definition
of the role of the institution and its officials.
The Cultural Background of the
PoliceIdea
The police, as we knor.r'it today, is a creature of English society in the second quarler
of the nineteenth century.l2 The location of
origin reflects the fact that England was, at
that time, fur[her advanced along the path of
development as an urban-industrial society
than other states. In due collrse, the model
was adopted everywhere else, albeit with
modifications reouired bv different traditions and diffe."ni fo.-s of political organization.In the United States the first modern
T
1
police dePar lm ent
iFN.* York for the
ance with recomm
rnittee that rt'as ear
it'r. English modt
cuicklv acquired :
t'hough older formr
iit, t-t-omblvthe offi
new forms were ac
FederalBureau of l
police dePartment
way ol ooll
Doftant
'Stut.t
since the tur
The most remal
foundation '
the
of
it is sequentiallYtl
blocks in the stru
gover nm ent '13M i
I ect ion, econom ic
service,and a host
gans antedate tht
Iiottt. Even Public
ited form in Pms
fore Sir Robert Pt
liament the Bill t
tan Police of Lon<
cause the absolut
teenth and eighte,
sons for creating
would furnish tht
tinuous and detai
Yet theY did not c
lied on inherited
and met such Pea
confronted bY cor
The postponeme
lice calls for an e>
tion to the Partic'
r ounded it . la
I n t he year s
enna ( 1815),Er
what seemed to k
tion of rates of cr
cially in t he 18.
were startled bY
crimes of violenc
a history of crin
beginning of the
sorted to a varie
the idea of havir
function as an a
was alwavs stro
ticular act or even will be
y. If it is believed that police
ren within a very consider:lat i ve d e gr ees of s ubt le tv ,
ren will be seen doing wiil
ICSS.
the fact that the normative
nts an exercise in formal,leile the structural character
pproach of informal, com:ality, the two differ in yet,
rps more important aspect.,
,pr o a ch d o es not adm it t h e l
e police may, in fact, not be,
rbjecti ve s.Cont r ar y t o t hi s ,
: activity that comes to the i
sideration of the characteril
it by popular opinion and i,
: que sti o n open. ll
:
rt rely on abstract formula-$
.r.. :1
^,-+ +L^
-^--:t
tly rule out
the possibility
: entirely wrong, or far too
rl,, '-.1^
r^/ecannot depend on a fabnse characterizations, we
therso u rce s .O f c our s e,w e
Jet the importance of the
,d character traits than we
nulas of the official manfurther in our quest for a
of t h e p o l i c e r olb, we m ust
:view of certain historical
ll show how the police
rsition in which they find
)n the basis of this review
was proposed thus fag we,
ulate an explicit definition
rstitution and its officials.
Background of the
lice Idea
e knor,r, it today, is a crea
iety in the second quart
:entury.12The location
tact that England was,
Cvanced along the path
urban-industrial socir
n due course. the
/where else. albeit wi
rired bv different t
forms of political o
d States the first m
police department was created by the State
bf NewYork for the ciry of New York, in accordance with recommendations made by a committee that was earlier sent to London to study
the English model. Other American cities
quickly acquired similar departments. Even
though older forrns of policing continue to exist, notably the office of the sheriff, and some
new forms were added more recently, e.g., the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the municipal
police department has been by far the most imbortant way of doing police work in the United
btut"t since the turn of the century.
The most remarkable fact about the timing
of the foundation of the modern police is that
ir is sequentially the last of the basic building
blocks in the structure of modern executive
sovernment.l3Military conscription, tax collection, economic and fiscal planning, social
service,and a host of other administrative orsans antedate the police by several generaIionr. Even public education existed in a limited form in Pr-ussia and in France long before Sir Robert Peel marshaled through Parliament the Bill establishing the Metropolitan Police of London. This seems strange becausethe absolute monarchies of the seventeenth and eighteenth century had ampie reasons for creating the kind of institution that
would furnish them with means for the continuous and detailed surveillance of citizens.
Yet they did not develop such means, but relied on inherited methods of crime control
and met such peacekeeping problems as they
confronted by contingently mobiiized means.
The postponement of the creation of the police calls for an explanation and directs attention to the particular circumstances that surrounded it.1a
In the years following the Peace of Vie n n a (1 8 i 5 ), E n g l i s h to-.i " ty experi enced
what seemedto have been an alur-lng escalation of rates of criminality in her citiei. Especially in the 1820's, the people of Londbn
were startled by a series of eitremely brutal
crimes of violence.ls Though the.o.,rrtry hud
of crime waves iating back to the
3lptoy
beginningof the eighteenth ceniuryt6 and reto
:,o.t9+ a varietyLf means to control them,
t9.u of having a police force that would
l1l
runction as an urm
oi executive government
wasalwayssrrongly;.;i;,J
I
:.i,.,
-.,.,.:-
iil" -ui., ."u_
son for the resistance was the fear that the
existence of such a force would tip the balance of power in favor of the executive
branch of government, leading ultimately to
a suppression of civil liberties. Though these
fears were never wholly allayed, the advocates of the poiice gained the upper hand in
the debate when it became clear that the inherited methods were utterly incapable of
handling the seemingly exploding crime
problem. Furthermore, the aftermath of the
Napoleonic wars brought forth a sequence of
disastrous urban riots that had to be subdued
by military force at great expense of life and
property. This method of peacekeeping came
to be viewed as inefficient as the old forms of
crime control since the use of armed repression did not seem to have any noticeable deterrent effects, despite its unrestrained brutalitv. Reasoning along lines of efficiency
was, of course, quite persuasive to a people
that deliberately cultivated a spirit of hardheaded business rationality, and it would be
easy to say that the police were finally accepted, despite many objections in principle,
on grounds of considerations of sheer expedienc,v.But there were other motives at work,
too. The inherited methods of crime control
and peace-keeping did not only fail in attaining the desired objectives, they were also perceived as incompatible with the ethos of a
civil society. The corrupt and brutal thiefcatcher extorting a pound of flesh from the
wretch he accused of crimes and the yeomanry massacring mobs of hungry protesters in front of St. Peter's Cathedral harkedback
to a dark and despised past, and offended the
sensibilities of a people who were at the threshold of a period of their national history they
defined as the acme of civilization.
The sentiment that could not abide the
more archaic forms of repressive control of
deviance and disorder was an expression of
cultural and ideological change initiated in
the nineteenth century. It is best described as
the rise of the sustained, and thus far not
abandoned, aspiration of Western society to
abolish violence and install peace as a stable
and permanent condition of everyday life.lT
To be sure, the history of this aspiration is by
and large a history of its failures and those
who count only results may judge the avow-
als of nonviolence as a massive display of hypocrisy. No generation would be more justified in passing this judgment than ours, for
the violence we have experienced is overwhelming by the standards of anv age. Yet,
there can be no doubt that during the past
one-hundred-fift1,' years the awareness of the
moral and practical necessitv of peace took
hold of the minds of virtually all people. The
advocacv of warfar-eand violence did not disappear entirely, but it grew progressivelv Iess
frank and it keeps losing ground to ar-gument s t hat c onde mn i t.
The yearning for peace is, of course, not a
n i n et eent h c entu ry i n v e n ti o n . Bu t i t h a p pened onl"' after the end of the Napoleonic
war s t hat at t emp ts w e re m a d e to d e v e l o p
p rac t ic al m eas u re s to b ri n g i ts a tta i n m e n t
wi thin t he or bit o f p ra c ti c a l p o s s i b i l i tv .M o re
importantl-v perhaps, during the nineteenth
century the stn-rctureof everydav life changed,
e spec ially in t he c i ti e s , i n w a v s i n d i c a ti n g
that people relied on the efficacy of the means
that were available to secure freedom fr om violence, despite the fact that this reliance was
demonstrably hazardous. Though these developments reflect the growth of humane sentiments, they derive more basicallv fr-oma shift
of values in u'hich the virtues asiociated r,r,ith
material progress and assiduous enterprise
gained ascendancy over the virtues of masculine prowess and combative chivalry.
Because the quest for peace has remained
such a dubious enterprise, some of the efforts
it inspired must be reviewed briefly. As ivill
be sho'uvn,proper appreciation of these efforts furnishes the indispensable background
for the understanding of the role of the police
in modern societyll8
At the international ievel, Europe enjoyed
b e tr v een 1815 an d 1 9 1 4 a p e ri o d o f h i s to ri cally unprecedented tranquilitv. The svstem
of diplomatic consultations that controlled
this state of affairs did not eliminate all bell i g er enc e and it f a i l e d c o m p l e te l y i n 1 9 7 4 ,a s
did its successor,the League of Nations, in
1939. Remarkably, howeve4 the lesson nations learned from these reversals did not
lead to the abandonment of efforts, but, quite
the contrary/, to endeavors to form an even
mo r e binding c o m m i tme n t to w o rl d w i d e
peacekeeping through the United Nations
Organization and through a variety of other
regional treaty organizations.
At the level of internal governing, t'wo devel opments are of parti cul ar i mportance.
First, compliance with the demands of political authority became, after the beginning of
the nineteenth century,,less and less dependent on the direct presence of officials and on
threats or the exercise of phvsical coercion,
and more and more on voluntary performancesof the governed.Indeed, i t i s the sal i ent
characteri sti c of modern authori tt, i r-trpt" mentati on that i t i nterposes di stance betr"veenthose who command and those who
obev. It clearlv makes a gr"eatdifference, for
exampl e, r,r,hethertaxes are col l ected b),
armed retainers or bv n-leansof rvritten communi cati ons of demands. A nd i t makes an
equally great difference r.r,hetherthe r-ecruitment of conscripts for militar-y service is accompl i shed through the presence of armed
might in villages or by means of mailed noti ces orderi ng el i gi bl e persons to report to i nduction centers. The threat of coercion is certainly not absent in modern forms of governing but its elaborate symbolization makes it
more remote. The extent to which we have
become accustomed to, and take for granted,
the indirect wavs of ar-rthority implementation and peaceful governing is perhaps best
illustrated by the fact that the notorious
"knock on the dool," associated with totalitarian regimes, is generally viewed as the supreme political abomination. le
The second, even clearer indication of progressive avoidance of force in governing is
evident in changes in the administration of
iustice. Up to the nineteenth century it was
commonly taken for granted that the criminal process, from accusation, through inquiry and trial, to punishment, must properlv
involve the svstematic moftification of defendants. Punishment for crimes meant death,
mutilation, or physical pain. It is sufficient to
point to the most obvious changes. The ordeal of i nqui si ti on has been enti rel y abandoned and its psychological forms are condemned. The atmosphere of the modern
courtroom, r.r,ithits emphasis on rationallv
argued proof and rebuttal-or even in its sezb
rosa dependence on plea bargaining-is profoundlv inimical to the traffic of force be-
E
tween accused.anc
p u n i s h m e n t 'w l t n I
tl
|i;;, partakes of
PeoPle
evil'
^nui"t t
sJade t hem t o m en
suffer dePrivatton'
uuit i"g Penal Philc
seem t hat t he ct - t r
least in t er m s ot I
dramattze the,Pos
lence even under c
sit ion of coer ct ves
hand. Again, as ir
affatrs, it is all to<
often belies inter
make a difference
r-rsedbecause the
b1'wa. Y
Dr
^ opel'or
Par allel t o t he
forts to conduct tl
pacific manner ar
conducting Prlval
ouestioned Preser
par t of exPect edn
t"ttt,rry Though
armed PeoPle,esP
we do not ordina
gers, and guns as
6ur dealings with
cial reasons for r
relativelY late su
American West i
not only with cor
in the denseiY P<
eastern Part of tlsuch occasional
physical force he
ceptable means
and certainlY as e
interest or gainit
ial sur-vival of r'
sonal violence ar
tions of Personal
"lower-class cult
satisfied with b
force from the P;
ons of good tastt
ninet eent h cenl
avoid belligerer
eral. That is, we
deny matters w
ness. are relater
ugh a variety of other
ations.
ral governing, two detrticular importance.
the demands of politirfter the beginning of
less and less dependrce of officials and on
of ph vsi ca l c oer c ion,
n voluntarv performn dee d , i t i s t he s alient
ern authority imple3 rpose s d i st anc e benand and those who
r great difference, for
:es are collected by
reans of written comrds . An d i t m ak es an
: wh e th e r the r ec r uit military service is acL€pfes€flce of armed
means of mailed noersons to report to in'eat of coercion is cerlern forms of governmbolization makes it
nt to rvhich we have
and take for granted,
rthority implementarning is perhaps best
- that the notorious
ssociated rvith totalialiy viewed as the suation.le
rrer indication of pro[orce in governing is
he administration of
.eenth century it was
anted that the crimiusation, through in:rment, must properly
rorlification of defencrimes meant death,
rain. It is sufficient to
rus changes. The orbeen entirely abanrgical forms are conrere of the modern
rphasis on rationally
.al-or even in its sab
a bargaining-is pro: traffic of force be-
.:#
*
4,,
,s
$
$
-Q.
,.ff'
F.
:rlt
,**,
s
,'s.
,.r.t
:3
,li
:r:
li
€
ta
:x}::
:,7;
,::3
.',i:.
$
I!*
rL:
il
.,*
"+
'#"
.n
'E
$
1S
.€
r*E
.#
.*
.A
t3
..rt
'r!l
':i).
-.x
:r4
,'*:
.,s
s
,g
idE
tween accused and accuser. Finally, modern
nunishment, with its emphasis on rehabilitaiion, partakes of the nature of an argument
against evil. People 31e sent to prisons to persiade them to mend their ways, more than to
suffer deprivation, at least in terms of the preTaiIing penal philosoph-v.to In fact, it would
seem that the criminal process of today, at
ieast in terms of its official script, seeks to
Aru-uttte the possibility of life without violence even under conditions where the imposition of coercive sanctions is the business at
hand. Again, as in the case of international
affairs, it is all too easy to shor'l' that reality
often belies intentions, but surely it does
make a difference whether some methods are
used because they are viewed as just and
or by wav of subterfuge.
Droper
'
Parallel to the admittedly insufficient efforts to conduct the affairs of governing in a
pacific mannel'are changes in the manner of
conducting private affairs. After ages of trnquestionedpresence,weapons ceasedto be a
part of expected male attire in the nineteenth
lentury. Though we are cerrainly not a disarmed people, especially in the United States,
we do not ordinarily consider swords, duggers,and guns as necessaryaccoutrements in
our dealings with others and r,verequire special reasons for carrying them around. The
relatively late survival of armed life in the
American West is conspicuous by contrast,
not only with conditions in Europe, but also
in the densely populated urban areas of the
eastern part of the United States. Aside from
such occasional reiics of the past, the use of
physical force has all but vanished as an acceptable means for defending one s honor,
and certainly as an effective way of advancing
interest or gaining honor. Indeed, the vestigial survival of regular patterns of interpersonal violence are perceived either as indications of personal immaturity or as features of
"lower-classculture."21 As if we were not fully
satisfied with banishing the private use of
force from the pale of respectabilitS,,our canons of good taste, which also originate in the
nineteenth century require us not only to
avoid belligerence but "bodiliness" in gene-ral.That ii we tend to suppress, conceul, o.
deny matters which, through their visceralness, are related to violence. This is under-
standable when one considers that candor
about sex, pain, and death is typically associated with styles of life in which violence is a
normal part of daily existence; they are found
joined in some pre-iiterature cultures, in our
medieval past, and in "lower-class culture."
Even more remarkably, the recent history of
medicine reveals some of these trends. Such
violent remedies as bloodletting, purging,
and cauterization started disappearing from
ntateria ntedica before the full justification
for thei r abandonment w as available, and
our efforts to devise anaesthetic procedures,
that is procedures that would neutralize unavoidably inflicted pain, have reached a level
of complexity requiring an entire medical
specialty for its proper administration.
Clearly the foregoing discussion of the pacific tendencies contained in the past century
and a half contains one-sided exaggerations.
We have repeatedly indicated that it would be
naive to view it as an epoch of peace. Indeed,
there is some question whether the several
generations wanted peace above all. The
times were, after all, a period of revolution of
both nationalist and social nature.22 But it
was not our intention to render a balanced
picture of the recent past, but merely to highlight one aspect of it. Our main point is that
the trend towards the achievement of peace
is basically new in Western history even as
we admit it is continuously in danger of being
ovenvhelmed bv counter-tendencies.
One last comment is necessarybefore concluding the discussion of the importance of
the ideal of peace and nonviolence in modern
civilization. It is often said that our morality
is based on precepts epitomized in the teachings of the Prince of Peace and on the humane wisdom of Socratic philosophy. Whatever the influence of these inspirations might
have been, it appears that our quest forpeace,
such as it was and is, draws mainly on other
sources.In the two thousand years since their
announcement, neither religious faith nor
humanistic concern led to even perfunctory
efforts of practical implementation. The aspiration to peace that has finally led to some
realistic steps towards its attainment derives
from the lack-iuster ethic of utilitarianism.
According to its maxims we are directed to
sacrifice the iesser and momentary interests
of personal gratification for the benefit of the
greater common good. The common good,
howeven is not advocated as an abstract ideal
becausewithin it is located the greater advantage of every individual. Accordingly, our des ir e t o aboli s h v i o l e n c e i s fu n d a m e n ta l l v
based not on the belief that it is spirituallv
reprehensibie, but on the realization that it is
foolish. Forceful attack and the defense it
provokes have an unfavorable input/output
ratio; thev are a waste of energv. A simple,
hardheaded, business-like calculus of preference dictates that coercive force, especiallyof
a physical nature, is at best an occasionally
unav oidable e v i l . J e re m y Be n th a m, th e l e ading prophet of this outlook, taught that even
legal punis hm e n t w a s , i n a n d o f i ts e l f, m i schievous and defensible solely in such minimal forms and measures :ls was necessarvto
contain those few who cor-rldnot or would not
see that their adr,'antasetoo was on the side
of cooperation rather ih^n conflict.23
Though it is always hazardous to formuiate estimates of historical necessity,it rvould
seem to be exceedingly unlikely that the idea
of the modern police could have arisen in anv
other cultural context except that described
above. In an-ycase,though some forms of policing existed in many different societies and
many different time periods, none of these
forms resembled our institution even remotely.
The Capacity to Use Force as the
Core of the Police Role
We have argued earlier that the quest for
peace by peaceful means is one of the culture
traits of modern civilization. This aspiration
is historically unique. For example, the Roman Empire was also committed to the objectives of reducing or eliminating warfare
during one period of its existence, but the
method chosen to achieve the Pax Rontena
was, in the language of the poet, debellaresuperbos, i.e., to subdue the haughty by force.
Contrary to this, our commitment to abolish
the traffic of violence requires us to pursue
the ideal by pacific means. In support of this
contention we pointed to the development of
an elaborate system of international diplomacy whose main objective it is to avoid waf
and to those chanses in internal government
that resulted in th"evirtual elimiiation of all
forms of violence, especiallv in the administrati on of j usti ce. That i s, the overal l tendency is not merely to withdrar,i'the basis of
legitimacy for all forms of provocative violence, but even from the exerciseof provoked
force requi re to meet i l l egi ti mate attacks.
N atural l v thi s i s not possi bl e to a ful l extent,
A t l east, i t has not been possi bl e thus far.
Since it is impossible to deprirzeresponsive
force entirely of legitimacy, its vestiges require special forms of authorization. Our society recognizes as legitimate three verv different forms of responsive force.
First, we are authorized to use force for the
purpose of self-defense.Though the laws governing self-defenseare far from clear, it appears that an attacked person can counterattack onl -y after he has exhausted al l other
means of avoiding harm, including retreat,
and that the counterattack may not exceed
what is necessary to disable the assailant
from carrying out his intent. These restrictions are actually enforceable because harm
done in the course of seif-defense does furnish grounds for criminal and tort proceedings. It becomes necessarv therefore, to shorv
compliance rvith these restrictions to rebut
the charges of excessiveand unjustified force
even in self-defense.2a
The second form of authorization entrusts
the power to proceed coercively to some specifically deputized persons against some specifically named persons. Among the agents
who have such highlv specific powers are
mental hospital attendants and prison guards.
Characteristically, such persons use force in
carrying out cour[ orders; but they may use
force only against named persons who are remanded to their custody and only to the extent required to implement a judicial order of
confinement. Of course, iike everybody else,
they may also act within the provisions governing self-defense.By insisting on the high
degree of limited specificity of the powers of
custodial staffs, we do not mean to deny that
these restrictions are often violated with impunity. The likelihood of sr-rchtransgressions
is enhanced by the secluded character of prisons and mental institutions, but their exist-
.r
j
ln
encedoes not
nition.
,
The t ht r o wa
cnonsive force i
donttu.ry to, the
limited, autno.rl:
ar ies, t he Pollc(
unrestrtcteo' rr(
tiallv" is often t
muli" fullY exPli
exist three torrr
of policemen to
mit even tnoug
t ical consequel
deadlY force is
Though the Por
spect exceed t k
iied nevertheler
dictions Police
to kill fleeing fi
misdemeanor I
sary to argue tt
volved in defin
of hot Pursuit,
to be an effectir
men may use I
of their duties
personal interr
other Persons.
we mention it
Thir d, and t h'
meet Possible r
use force mal
three restricti
meant bY the u
Aside from th
guidelines, no
no limitations
policeman wh
there exist an'
judgment wh
tion was necel
finally, it is e;
tions involvin
reviewed and
In sum, the
lawful use of I
meaningless
what is mean
use of minimr
nificance atta
force is confir
, rrl rlllslrlar
government
f
{
'irtual elimination of
all .$
;pecially in the admini_ *
'hat
is, the overall ten_ *
o withdraw the basis of *E
-ms of provocative
ft
vio_ *
he exercise of provoked ,t,{
e t i l l e g i t i m a t e a t t a c k s . ii
t't
rossible to a full extent. :s
)een possible thus far. f
: to deprive responsive fr
::r.
$
timacy,
its vestiges re_
'
authorization. Or.r..o_
Jitimate three very dif_
rsive force.
ized to use force for the
:. Though the Iaws sor,_
e far from clea4 it
"p_
person can counterat_
s exhausted all other
rm, including retreat, t;?,
ttack may not exceed *
disable the assailant ii
intent. These restric_
6
+,
rceable because harm
,a
self-defense does fur_ +:s.
r
nal and tort proceed_ ,:'
s
ary therefore, to shou, s
.i
restrictions to rebut
f
f
'and unjustified force
]::i
i
E
s
uthorization entrusts
rercively to some spe_
rns against some spe_
s. Among the agents
specific powers are
rtsand prison guards.
persons use force in
rs; but they may use
l persons who are re_
g and onlv to the ex:nt a judicial order of
like everybody else,
r the provisions gov_
nsisting on the hieh
:ity of the porve.r"of
rt mean to deny that
:n violated with im_
such transgressions
ed character of prisrns, but their exist-
{.
i
a
!
;
erce does not impair the validity of our definition.
The third way to legitimize the use of responsive force is to institute a poiice force.
iontrary to the cases of self-defense and the
limited authorization of custodial functionarres,the police authorization is essentially
"essenunrestricted. Because the expression
r,'r,ill
we
a
point,
to
hedge
used
often
is
tiallv"
111uk.fullv erplicit urhat we mean b-vit' There
exist three formal limitations of the freedom
of policemen to use force, which we must adthough thev have virtually no prac1nit
"u.tt
tical consequences. First, the police use of
deadly force is limited in most jurisdictions.
Though the powers of a policeman in this respect exceed those of citizens, they are limifed nevertheless.For example, in some jurisdictions policemen are empowered to shoot
to kill fleeing felony sttspects,br,rtnot fleeing
misdemeanor suspects. It is scarcely necessarVto argue that, given the uncertainties involved in defining a delict under conditions
of hot pursuit, this could hardly be expected
to be an effective limitation.2s Second, policemen may use force only in the performance
of their duties and not to advance their own
personal interest or the private interests of
other persons. Though this is rather obvious,
we mention it for the sake of completeness.
Third, and this point too is brought up to
meet possibie objections, policemen may not
use force maliciously or frivolously. These
three restrictions, and nothing else, were
meant by the use of the qualifier "essentiallv".
Aside from these restrictions there exist no
guidelines, no specifiabie range of objectives,
no limitations of any kind that instruct the
policeman what he may or must do. Nor do
there exist any criteria that would allow the
judgment r,r'hether some forceful intervention was necessary desirable, or proper. And
finallyi it is exceedingly' rare that police actions involving the use of force are actually
reviewed and judged by anyone at all.
In sum, the frequently heard talk about the
lawful use of force by the police is practically
meaningless and, because no one knows
what is meant by it, so is the talk abor,rt the
use of minimum force. Whatever vestigal significance attaches to the term "lalvful" use of
force is confined to the obvious and unneces-
sary rule that police officers may not cornmit
crimes of violence. Otherwise, howevet the
expectation that they malz 2nd will use force
is left entirely undefined. In fact, the only instructions anv policeman ever receives in this
respect consist of sermonizing that he should
be humane and ci rcumspec t , and t hat he
must not desist flom what he has undertaken
merely because its accompiishment may call
for coercive means. We might add, at this
point, that the entire debate about the troublesome problem of police bmtalitv will not
move beyond its present impasse, and the desire to eliminate it wiil remain an impotent
conceit, until this point is fully grasped and
unequivocally admitted. In fact, our expectation that policemen will use force, coupled by
our refusals to state clearly what we mean by
i t (asi de from sancti moni ous hom ilies) ,
smacks of more than a bit of perversity.
Of course,nei ther the pol i ce nor t he public
is entirelv in the dark about the justifiable use
of force by the officers. We had occasion to
allude to the assumption that policemen mav
use force in making arrests. But the benefit
deriving from this apparent core of relative
claritv is outweighed by its potentially misl eadi ng i mpl i cati ons. For the aut hor izat ion
of the police to use force is in no important
sense related to their duty to apprehend
criminals. Were this the case then it could be
adequately considered as merely a special
case of the same authorization that is entrusted to custodial personnel. It might perhaps be considered a bit more complicated,
but essentiallv of the same nature. But the
police authority to use force is radically different from that of a prison guard. Whereas
the powers of the latter are incidental to his
obligation to implement a legal command,
the police role is far better understood by saying that their ability to arrest offenders is incidental to their authority to use force.
Many puzzling aspects of police work fall
into place when one ceases to look at it as
principally concerned with law enforcement
and crime control, and oniy incidentally and
often incongruously concerned with an infinite variety of other matters. It makes much
more sense to say that the police are nothing
else than a mechanism for the distribution of
situationally justified force in society. The lat-
ter conception is preferable to the former on
three grounds. First, it accords better with
the actuai expectations and demands made
of the police (even though it probablv conflicts with what most people would sa\,',or expect to hear, in ansu'er to the question about
the proper police function); second, it gives a
better accounting of the actual allocation of
police manpower and other resources; and,
thir d, it lends u n i tv - to a l l k i n d s o f p o l i c e activity. These three justifications will be discussed in some detail in the follor.r'ing.
The American citv drvellers repertoire of
methods for handling problems intludes one
known as "calling the cops." The practice to
which the idiom refers is enormously widespread. Though it is more frequent in some
segments of society than in others, there are
very feu, people who do not or would not resort to it r-rndersuitable circumstances. A few
illustrations will furnish the background for
a n ex planat ion o f w h a t " c a l l i n g th e c o p s"
m eans . 26
Two patrolmen were directed to report to
an address located in a fashionable district of
a large citl: On the.scene thel' were greeted
by the lady of the house who complained that
the m aid had b e e n s te a l i n g a n d re c e i v i n g
male visitors in her quafters. She wanted the
maid's belongings searched and the man removed. The patrolmen refused the first request, promising to forward the complaint to
the bureau of detectives, but agreed to see
what they could do about the man. Aftergaining entrance to the maid's room they compelled a male visitor to leave, drove him several blocks away from the house, and released him with the warning never to return.
In a tenement, patrolmen were met by a
public health nurse who took them through
an abysmally deteriorated apartment inhabited by four young children in the care of an
elderly woman. The babvsitter resisted the
nurse's earlier attempts to remove the children. The patroimen packed the children in
the squad car and took them to Juvenile Hall,
over the continuing protests of the elderly
woman.
While cruising through the streets a team
of detectives recosnized a man named in a
teletype received f.o.r-r the sheriff of an adjoining county. The suspect maintained that
.Y
he was in the hospital at the time the offense
alleged in the communication took place, and {
asked the officers to veriSr his story over their
car radio. When he continued to plead innocence he was handcuffed and taken to headquarters. Here the detectives learned that the
teletvpe had been canceled. Prior to his release the man w'as told that he could have
saved himself grief had he gone along voluntarilr,l
In a downtown residential hotel, patrolmen for-rndtwo ambuiance attendants trying
to persuade a man, w ho accordi ng to al l accounts was desperatelv ill, to go to the hospital. After some talk, they helped the attendants in carrryingthe protesting patient to the
ambulance and sent them off.
In a mi ddi e-cl ass nei ghborhood, patrol men found a partly disassembled ca4 tools, a
loudlv blaring radio, and five beer-drinking
yor-rthsat the curb in front of a single-family
home. The homeow ner compl ai ned that thi s
had been going on for several davs and the
men had refused to take thei r acti vi ti es el servhere. The patrolmen ordered the youths to
pack r-rpand leave. When one sassed them
they threl'u'him into the squad car, drove'him
to the precinct station, from where he rvas
releasedafter receiving a severe tongue lashing from the desk sergeant.
In the apartment of a quarreling couple,
patrolmen were told by the',vife, whose nose
was bleeding, that the husband stole her
purse containing money she earned. The patrolmen told the man they would "take him
in," whereupon he returned the purse and
they left.
What all these vignettes are meant to illustrate is that whatever the substance of the
task at hand, whether it involves protection
against an undesired imposition, caring for
those who cannot care for themselves, attempting to solve a crime, helping to save a
life, abating a nuisance, or settling an explosive dispute, police intervention means above
all making use of the capacity and authority
to overpower resistance to an attempted solution in the native habitat of the problem.
There can be no doubt that this feature of police work is uppermost in the minds of people
who solicit police aid or direct the attention
of the police to problems, that persons against
I
whom t he Police 1
m ind ancl conou
and that every c(
t ion Pr oject s t he
I
urd muu have to
'
does
It
obiective.
seek
who
Po
iont
or ot her . gover nl
m at t er whet her t l
, o. " asPect . oflz
unconnect ed wlt
It must De em
concePtion of the
use force in the P
conclusion t hat
'
routines consist
ver
is
I
t
capacit v.
formation on th
of phYsical coerc
all policemen ar
virruallY never in
sort to it. What r
dure is defined b
be opPosed in it
be used if it is o
istence of the Po
ety. AccordinglY,
licemen suppos
pletely identica
kinds of situatio
non-negotiablY r
Our second jt
definition of tht
the traditional I
role requires us
pr act ices t o see
.subsumedunde
To begin we cal
ment and crirr
garded as callir
negotiably coer
estimates, aPPr
able manpower
any time comn
and cr im inals. '
relatively small
an agency oste
trol, it is exceer
specific routine
regulation, cro
censed est abli:
disputes, emeri
I
'-alat the time the offense
unication took place, and
verify his story over their
continued to plead inno:uffed and taken to headetectiveslearned that the
:anceied. Prior to his retold that he couid have
rad he gone along volun^esidential hotel, patrol,ulance attendants trying
w ho a cco r ding t o all acl
ely ill, to go to the hospi, they helped the atten: protesting patient to the
them off.
s neighborhood, patrollisassembled ca4 tools, a
, , a n d fi ve beer - dr ink ins
r f r o n t o f a s ingle- f am ili
ner co mp l a ined t hat t hil
for several days and the
take their activities else:n ordered the youths to
When one sassed them'
the squad car, drove him
on, flrom where he was
ing a severe tongue lashrgeant.
of a quarreling couple,
by the wife, whose nose
t he h u sb and s t ole her
rney she earned. The pan they would "take him
returned the purse and r
rettes are meant to illuser the substance of the
:r it involves protection
I imposition, caring for
:are for themselves, at:rime, helping to save a
lce, or settling an explottervention means above
: capacity and authority
nce to an attempted so.
habitat of the problem.
It that this feature of poi
st in the minds of pe
C or direct the attenti
:ms, that persons agai
whom the police proceed have this feature in
mind and conduct themselves accordingly,
and that every conceivable police intervention projects the rnessage that force may be,
and may have to be, used to achieve a desired
obiective.It does not matter whether the persons who seek police help are prir,'atecitizens
or other government officials, nor does it
matter whether the problem at hand involves
some aspect of lar,' enforcement or is totally
unconnected with it.
It must be emphasized, howevet, that the
conception of the centrality of the capacitl' 1e
use force in the police role does not entail the
c o n c l u s i o n th a t th e o rdi nanl occupati onal
routines consist of the actual exercise of this
capacity.It is verrylikely, though we lack information on this point, that the actual use
of physical coercion and restraint is rare for
all policemen and that man.v policemen dre
virtually never in the position of having to resort to it. What matters is that police procedure is defined by the feature that it may not
be opposed in its course, and that force can
be used if it is opposed. This is what the existenceof the police makes available to society.Accordingly, the question, "What are pol i c e m e n s u p p o s e d to do?" i s al most completely identical with the question, "What
kinds of situations require remedies that are
non-negotiably coerci ble ?"27
Our second justification for preferring the
definition of the police role rve proposed to
the traditional law enforcement focus of the
role requires us to revier.v the actual police
practices to see to what extent they can be
subsumed under the conception we offered.
To begin we can take note that law enforcement and crime control are obviously regarded as calling for remedies that are nonnegotiably coercible. According to available
estimates,approximately one-third of available manpower resources of the police are at
any time committed to dealins with crimes
and criminals. Though this ma! seem to be a
relativelysmall share of the totil resources of
an agency ostensiblv devoted to crime con_
trol, it is exceedingiy unlikely that any other
specificroutine polit" acrivity, such ai traffic
regulation, crowd control, supervision
of liestablishments, settling of citizens'
!1,nsed
orsputes,emergency
health aidi ceremonial
functions, or any other, absorb anywhere
near as iarge a share of the remaining twothirds. But this is precisely what one would
expect on the basis of our definition. Given
the likelihood that offenders will seek to oppose apprehension and evade punishment, it
is only natural that the initial deaiings with
them be assigned to an agency that is capable
of overcoming these obstacles. That is, the
proposed definition of the role of the police
as a mechanism for the distribution of nonnegotiabiy coercive remedies entails the prioritv of crime control by direct inference. Beyond that, how eve4 the definit ion also encompassesother types of act ivit ies, albeit at
lower level of prioritv.
B ecause the i dea that the oolice ar e basically a crimefighting agencv iu, .r",r"r been
challenged in the past, no one has troubled
to sort out the remaining priorities. Instead,
the police have alwavs been forced to justifv
actirzities that did not involve law enforcement i n the di rect sense by eit her linking
them constnrctively to law enforcement or by
defining them as nuisance demands for service. The dominance of this view, especially
i n the mi nds of pol i cemen, has t wo per nicious consequences. First, it leads to a tendency to vierv all sorts of problems as if they
involved culpable offenses and to an excessive reliance on quasilegal methods for handling them. The widespread use of arrests
without intent to prosecute exempiifies this
state of affairs. These cases do not involve errors in judgment about the applicability of a
penal norm but deliberate pretense resorted
to because more appropriate methods of
handling problems have not been developed.
Second, the view that crime control is the
only serious, important, and necessary part
of police work has deleterious effects on the
morale of those police officers in the uniformed patrol who spend most of their time
with other matters. No one, especially he who
takes a positive interest in his work, likes being obliged to do things day-in and day-out
that are disparaged by his colleagues. Moreovet the lor.,u'evaluationof these duties leads
to neglecting the development of skill and
knowledge that are required to discharge
them properly and efficiently.
It remains to be shown that the capacity to
use coercive force lends thematic unity to all
police activity in the same sense r,r,hich,let us
sa1',the capacity to cure iliness lends unity to
everything that is ordinarily done in the field
of medical practice. While everrybod)'agrees
that the police actually engage in an enorm ous v ar i e tv o f a c ti v i ti e s , o n l v a parl of
'uvhichint,olves lau' enfor^cement,manv argue
that this state of affairs does not reouire explanat ion b u t c h a n g e .Smi th , fo l -e x a n r pl e,ar-gued that the irnposition of duties ar-rddemands that are not related to crime control
dilutes the effectirrenessof the police and that
the grorving trend in this direction shor-rldbe
curtailed and even reversed.28On the face of
it t his ar g u me n t i s n o L rv i th o u t me ri L , especiallv if one consider-sthat verrymanv of those
actirzities that are unrelated to lau' enforcem ent inv o l v e d e a l i r-rgu ,,i thp ro b l e ms t hat l i e
in t he f iel d o f p s y c h i a tn ' , s o c i a l w e l fa re, hum an r elat i o n s , e d u c a ti o n , a n d s o o n . E ach of
t hes e f ield s h a s i ts o w n tra i n e d s p e ci al i sts
who ar e r e s p e c ti v e l v m o re c o m p e te n t than
the police. It rvould seem preferabie, therefore, to take all those matters that belong
properly to other specialists out of the hands
of the police and turn tl-rem over to those to
whom they belon-e.Not only would this relieve some of the pressures that presently impinge on the police, but it r.t,ouldalso result
in better services.2e
Unfortunatelv. this view overlooks a centrally importani fa.tor. While it is true that
policemen often aid sick and troubled people
because physicians and social workers are
unable or unr,r'illing to take their services
where they are needed, this is not the only or
even the main reason for police involvement.
In fact, physicians and social workers themselves quite often "call the cc)ps."For not unlike the case of the adn-rinistration of justice,
on the peripherry of the rationall)' ordered
procedures of medical and social work practice lurk exigencies that call for the exercise
of coercion. Since neither physicians nor social workers are authorized or equipped to
use force to attain desirable objectives, the
t ot al dis e n g a g e me n t o f th e p o l i c e w oul d
mean allowing many a problem to move unhampered in the direction of disaster.But the
non-larn'-enforcementactivities of the police
are by no means confined to matters that are w hol l y,or even mai nl y w i thi n the purvi ew o f
some other i nsti tuti onal i zed remedi al spe cialty. Manl; perhaps most, consist of addressing situations in rvhich people simply do
not seem to be able to manage their own lives
adequatelv. Nor is it to be taken for granted
that these situations invariablv call for the
use, or the threat of the use, of for-ce. It is
enou-ehi f there i s need for i mmedi ate and unquesti oned i nterventi on that must not be al l orved to be defeatedbv possi bl e resi stance .
A nd u' here there i s a possi bi l i tv of great
harm, the inter-vention u,ouid appeal' to be
j usti fi ed even i f the ri sk i s, i n stati sti cal terms ,
qui te renrote.Tzrke,for i nstance the presence
of mentallv ill persons in the communitv.
l
n that rnost l i ve qui et
Though i t i s r,vel know
and unclbtrusirrelives, thev are perceived as
a serious h:rzard tcr
occasior-rallvcor-tstitr,rting
themsel vesand others.Thus, i t i s not st-tt-prising that the police are alrvavs prepared to deal
w i th these persons at the sl i ghtest i ndi cati on
of a possi bl e emergency. S i mi l arl v, though
very few family quarrels lead to serious consequences,the fact that most homi ci des occur among quarreling kin leads to the preparedness to i ntervene at the i nci pi ent stages of
probl ems.
In sum, the rol e of the pol i ce i s to address
all sorts of human problems when and insofar as tlreir solutions do or may possiblv require the use of force at the point of their occurrence. This lends homogeneity to such diverse procedures as catching a criminal, driving the mayor to the airport, evicting a
drunken person from a bar, directing traffic,
crowd controi, taking care of lost children,
administering medical first aid, and separating fighting relatives.
There is no exaggeration in saying that
there is topical unitv in this very incomplete
list of lines of police work. Perhaps it is true
that the common practi ce of assi gni ng policemen to chauffeur mavors is based on the
desire to give the appearance of thrift in the
urban fisc. But note, if one wanted to make
as far as possible certain that nothing would
ever impede His Honors freedom of movement, he would certainly put someone intcr
the driver's seat of the auto who has the
authority and the capacit.v to overcome all
unforeseeao
is PerhaPs n
desk sergear
because t he
does not acl
youngster ir
"atttt
arrive
would have
ing him thel
We must
several Parl
order to shc
main Problt
t o lif e in n
elaborate co
that result I
definitions'
At the be
lice aPPeart
that did not
t he acknov
pr act ices. I
drew attent
the police t
dependent ,
a st igm a at
it s connecl
and disord,
able, it is c
dreadful er
Second, be
and often <
tions are l;
sophisticat
and more
for-d.Henc,
crude. Thi
sumed tha
downs tha
m or e hea
classestha
lice surveil
That is, all
feel the st
cause of tk
felt, police
Next, r,t
stand hor,r
this unent
considerat
of roughl.
the sustair
rfined to matters that are ;
'rly within the purview
of I
: iona l i ze d rem edial s pe. ps mo st, c ons is t of adn which peopie simply do
o manage their orvn lives
! to be taken for granted
s invariably call for the
f the use, of force. It is
:d for immediate and untion that must not be aiJ by p o ssi b le r es is t anc e.
i a p o ssi bilit v of gr eat
ion would appear to be
s k is, i n sta t is t ic alt er m s .
or instance the presence
ons i n th e c ont m unit v .
twn that most live quiet
s , t h e v a re per c eiv ed as
rting a serious hazard to
' s . Th u s, i t is not
s ur - pr is r always prepared to deal
t h e s l i g h t e s ti n d i c a r i o n
e nc v. Si mi lar ly , t hough
rels l e a d to s er ious c onhat most homicides oc- ;
J kin leads to the prepart t he i n ci p i ent s t agesof
f
the police is to address
oblems when and insodo or may possibly reat the point of their ocromogeneity to such dirtching a criminal, drivhe airport, evicting a
a ba4 directing traffic,
I care of lost children,
rl first aid, and separateration in saying that
in this very incomplete
vork. Perhaps it is true I
lctice of assigning po- :
mayors is based on the
earance of thrift in the
if one wanted to make
ain that nothing would
or's treedom of rrlov€:
inly put someone into
he auto who has the
racity to overcome all
unforeseeablehuman obstacles. Similarly, it
is perhaps not too farfetched to assume that
desk sergeantsfeed ice cream to lost children
because they like children. But if the treat
does not achieve the purpose of keeping the
youngster in the station house until his parLnts arrive to redeem him, the sergeant
would have to resort to other means of keephim there'
ing
'We
must nor,riattempt to pull together the
severai parls of the foregoing discussion in
order to show how thev bring into relief the
main problems of adjusting police function
to life in modern society, and in order to
elabor ate con st ru ct i veIv certa i n c on seq u en c es
that result from the assumption of the role
definitions we have ProPosed.
At the beginning we observed that the police appear to be burdened by an opprobrium
that did not seem to lessenproportionately to
th e a c k n o w l e d g e d i m p rovements i n thei r
p ra c ti c e s .T o e x p l a i n t hi s puzzl i ng fact w e
ir.* attention to three perceived features of
the police that appear to be substantially independentof particular work methods. First,
u riigmu attaches to police work because of
its connection with evil, crime, perwersity,
and disorder. Though it may not be I'easonable, it is common that those who fight the
dreadful end up being dreaded themselves.
Second,because the police must act quickjy
and often on mere intuition, their interventions are lacking in those aspects of moral
sophistication which only a more extended
and more scrupulous consideration can afford. Hence their methods are comparatively
crude. Third, because it is commonly assumed that the risks of the kinds of breakdowns that require police action are much
more heavily concentrated in the lower
classesthan in other segments of society,police surveillanceis inherently discriminatory.
That is, all things being equal, some persons
feel the sting of police scrutiny merely becauseof their station in life. Insofar as this is
felt, police work has divisive effects in society.
Next, we argued that one cannot understand how the-police "found themselves" in
this unenviable position without taking into
consideration tlrat one of the cultural tiends
of roughly the pasr century-and-a-half was
rne sustained aspiration to install peace as a
stable condition of everyday life. Though no
one can fail being impressed b1, the many
ways the attainment of this ideal has been
frustrated, it is possible to find some evidence
of partiaily effective efforts. Many aspects of
mundane existence in our cities have become
more pacific than they have been in past epochs of history More importantly for our purposes, in the domain of internal statecraft,
the distance between those who govern and
those who are governed has gror,r,n and the
gap has been filled with bureaucratically
symbol i zed communi cati on. Wher e ear lier
compliance was secured by physical presence and armed might, it now rests mainly
on peaceful persuasion and a rational compliance. We found the trend toward the pacifi cati on i n governi ng most st r ongly dem onstrated in the administration of justice.
The banishment of all forms of violence from
the criminal process, as administered by the
courts, has as a corollary the legalization of
j udi ci al proceedi ngs. The l at t er r ef lect s a
movement away from peremptory and
oracular judgment to a method in which all
decisions are based on exhaustively rational
grounds involving the use of explicit legal
norms. Most important among those norms
are the ones that limit the powers of authority
and specify the rights of defendants. The legahzatron and pacification of the criminal
process was achieved b1i among other things,
expelling from its purview those processes
that set i t i nto moti on. S i nce in t he init ial
steps, where suspicions are formed and arrests are made, force and intuition cannot be
eliminated entirely, puritv can be maintained
by not taking notice of them. This situation
is, howeve4 paradoxical if we are to take seriously the idea that the police is a law enforcement agency in the strict sense of legality. The recognition of this paradox became
unavoidable as early as in 1914, in the landmark decision of Weeksv. U.S. In the following decades the United States Supreme Court
issued a series of rulings affecting police procedure which foster the impression that the
iudiciary exercises control over the police.
But this impression is misieading, for the rulings do not set forth binding norms for police
work but merely provide that if the police
propose to set the criminal process into mo-
tion, tlzen they must proceed in cerlain legally
restricted \,/avs.These restrictions are, theref or e, c ond i ti o n a l , s p e c i fu i n g a s i t w e re the
terms of deliverv and acceptance of a selice
and nothing more. Outside of this arrangement the judges have no direct concel'nsu'ith
police work and r,r,illtake notice of its illegality, if it is illegal, only u,hen offended citizens
s eek c iv il re d re s s .
Because onlv a small part of the activit._v
of
t he polic e i s d e d i c a te d to l a w e n fo rcement
and bec au s e th e y d e a l rv i th th e ma j o r i tl ,' of
their problems u'ithout invoking the lar.r',a
broader definition of their-role was proposed.
After r-evierving briefl_y*rvhat the public appear s t o ex p e c t o f th e p o l i c e , th e ra n g e of act iv it ies pol i c e a c tu a l l y - e n g a g e i n , a n d the
t hem e t hat u n i fi e s a l l th e s e a c ti v i ti e s , i t w as
strggestedthat the role of'ilrc police is best Lutder s t ood es e n rc c l ru n i s rtt' fo rth e d i s tri btni on
of non-negotiabh coercive force enrylot,edin
ac c or dat t ce v ,i th tl rc d i c ta te s o f a n i n tui ti ve
grosp of-sitttational exigencies.
I t is , of c o u rs e ,n o t s u rp ri s i n g th a t a soci ety
c om m it t ed to th e e s ta b l i s l -rm e not f p e ace by
pacific means and to the abolishment of all
forms of violence from the fabric of its social
relations, at least as a matter of official morality and poiicy, would establish a corps of
specially deputized officials endowed with
the exclusive monopoly of using force contingently r.r,herelimitations of foresight fail to
provide alternatives. That is, given the melancholy appreciation of the fact that the total
abolition of force is not attainable, the closest
approximation to the ideal is to limit it as a
special and exclusive trust. If it is the case,
however, that the mandate of the police is organized around their capacity and authority
to use force, i.e., if this is r.rrhatthe institution's existence makes available to societv.
t hen t he ev a l u a ti o n o f th a t i n s ti tu ti o n . p.i formance must focus on it. While it is quite
true that policemen will have to be judged on
other dimensions of competence, too-for
example, the exercise of force against criminal suspects requires some knowledge about
crime and criminallaw-theirmethods
as society's agents of coercion will have to be considered central to the overall judgment.
The proposed definition of the police role
entails a difficult n-roral problem. Hou, can
rve arrive at a favorable or even accepting
.j udgment about an acti vi t.y w hi ch i s, i n i ts
very conception, opposed to the ethos of the
pol i tv that authori zes i t? Is i t not w el l ni gh
inevitable that this mandate be concealed in
ci rcuml ocuti or-r? W hi l e sol vi ng puzzl es of
moral phiiosophy is bevond the scope of this
anah'sis,u,e will have to address this question
i n a somew hat more mundane formul ati on:
namely, on rvhat ter-ms can a societ\, dedicated to peace i nsti tr-rti onal i zethe exerci seof
force?
It appear-sthat in otrr societl' two ansrvers
to thi s questi on are acceptabl e.One defi nes
the targets of legitimate force as enemies and
the coerci ve advance agai nst them as w arfare. Those rvho wage thi.s r.r,arare expected
to be possessed by the mi l i tary vi rtues of
valor, obedience and estrtritde corps. The enterprise as a rvhole is justified as a sacrificial
and gl ori ous mi ssi on i n rr,,hi chthe w ari or' s
duty is "not to reason why." The otl-reranswer
involves an altogether different imagerv. The
tarsets of force are conceived as practical obj ecti ves and thei r attai nment a matter of
practical expediencv. The process involves
prudence, economy, and consi dered j udgment, ft-om case to case. Tl-reenterprise as a
whole is conceived as a public tmst, the exercise of which is vested in individual practitioners who are personally responsible for their
deci si ons and acti ons. R efl ecti on suggests
that the two patterns are profoundly incompatible. Remarkably, however, our police depadments have not been deterred from attempting the reconciliation of the irreconcilable. Thus, our policemen are exposed to the
demand of a conflicting nature in that their
actions are supposed to reflect militan'pror.l,ess and professional acumen.
Notes
1. Werner Dankert, Unelrliche Menschen:Die
VerfehnttenBentfe, Bern: Francke Verlag,
1963.
2. G.S. McWatterswrote about the typical policeman,after many vearsof being one himself, "He is the outgror.vthof a diseasedand
corr-uptedstate of things, and is, consequently,morally diseasedhimself."Quotedin
Lane,op. cit. supra,Note 2 at p. 69.
T
3. Erle Stanl
storv r't'rite
parent.ne
When he
picted a P'
of his boo
protest; s€
in the Ad
Jottnnl ol
4ice Sciett
Falk, "Th'
lice," Arrt'
( 1 9 6 s7) s
4. V.W. Piet-:
Police De
markable
u'ith rem
erations
dense an
groups I
contribu
o t h e l -h a l
derant n'
these grc
"in Detr<
were mi
groes. . .
Negro P'
the Poli<
'
Norris,
Effectivt
Detroit L
5, Gilbert (
duced I
Juvenili
Washinl
Office, J
Piliavin
in Bord
56-98.
6. Allan Si
SocietY
tory of
Bordua
7 . J . Q .W i
with cc
ers, Ne1
mitad
crimes;
at all r
than ot
lt4-s
a(,
make c
lieve tl
if they
cion, r