In “The Persistent Pull of Police Professionalism,” Sklansky stressed the importance of community policing, especially its concept of legitimacy despite that professional policing is persistent on American law enforcement. He warned that the overreliance of technology drew attention away from building a trustful relationship with people (Sklansky 10). The effective policing requires building trust and legitimacy; trust and legitimacy heavily depend on street-level officers’ fairness and decency (Sklansky 10). One of the reason why professional policing didn’t survive on 1960 was because it was unconnected with communities; the legitimacy of police was in crisis and police was distrusted by the community, especially minorities (Musheno, Feb 18). Police requires voluntary cooperation from the general public to be effective in controlling crime and maintaining order; information and data can be effectively collected by people talk frankly with their trustful police officers. Policing is most effective when people view it as legitimate based on their experience with police acting fairy.
Interestingly, people are concerned more with whether they receive fair outcomes, arrived through a fair procedure, rather than favorable outcomes (Tyler 5). People want justice from police officers and evaluate them according to whether they get it; police is viewed as legitimate if their action is viewed as fair and appropriate; the legitimacy of the authority in turn shapes people’s compliance with the law and cooperation with police (Tyler 5). In order to be viewed as legitimate, it is important for police officers to listen to people willingly and treat them with respect; people feel denied if they are not allowed to express their view; in turn, this will decrease the legitimacy of police and the loyalty of obeying law (Tyler 176). This legitimacy of policing cannot be achieved by technology of professional policing but the daily encounter and dialogue between street-level officers and people.
Not only does the direct contact with police officers shape their legitimacy but also the indirect contact is important. As Professor Musheno mentioned that the primary surveillance is “watching” and “socializing”; police officers are always under this primary surveillance by communities. Even they are just giving a ticket for traffic offenders, their attitude, the way they talk and body language are always watched by bystanders; they in turn evaluate whether the police officers are legitimate. Further, they spread their view of police legitimacy by “socializing”; they talk, discuss the issue with friends and families.
Despite persistent revival of professional policing, it is legitimacy of police that make it possible to control crime and maintain order. The legitimacy of police is built by people’s direct and indirect contact with police officers. It is important for police to treat people with respect and listen to their opinions willingly. Compared with technology advancement which is a natural development in policing, building legitimacy is harder, more important, and needs focused attention.
Sources:
Sklansky, David Alan, The Persistent Pull of Police Professionalism. New Perspectives in Policing, March 2011; UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 1788463.
Interestingly, people are concerned more with whether they receive fair outcomes, arrived through a fair procedure, rather than favorable outcomes (Tyler 5). People want justice from police officers and evaluate them according to whether they get it; police is viewed as legitimate if their action is viewed as fair and appropriate; the legitimacy of the authority in turn shapes people’s compliance with the law and cooperation with police (Tyler 5). In order to be viewed as legitimate, it is important for police officers to listen to people willingly and treat them with respect; people feel denied if they are not allowed to express their view; in turn, this will decrease the legitimacy of police and the loyalty of obeying law (Tyler 176). This legitimacy of policing cannot be achieved by technology of professional policing but the daily encounter and dialogue between street-level officers and people.
Not only does the direct contact with police officers shape their legitimacy but also the indirect contact is important. As Professor Musheno mentioned that the primary surveillance is “watching” and “socializing”; police officers are always under this primary surveillance by communities. Even they are just giving a ticket for traffic offenders, their attitude, the way they talk and body language are always watched by bystanders; they in turn evaluate whether the police officers are legitimate. Further, they spread their view of police legitimacy by “socializing”; they talk, discuss the issue with friends and families.
Despite persistent revival of professional policing, it is legitimacy of police that make it possible to control crime and maintain order. The legitimacy of police is built by people’s direct and indirect contact with police officers. It is important for police to treat people with respect and listen to their opinions willingly. Compared with technology advancement which is a natural development in policing, building legitimacy is harder, more important, and needs focused attention.
Sources:
Sklansky, David Alan, The Persistent Pull of Police Professionalism. New Perspectives in Policing, March 2011; UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 1788463.
Tyler, T. R. . Why people obey the law. New Jersy: Princeton Univ Pr, 2006. 5.176. Print.
I agree that the way the police is perceived is important to their legitimacy. I would find it hard to trust a rude or dismissive police officer. But I think that there is more to legitimacy than just polite police officers. In the first week of lecture, Professor Musheno told us about a situation where a young, female, black college student was pulled over for a routine traffic stop and although the officer was polite, she still felt profiled. I think there is a distinction between what law enforcement portrays itself as and how it is perceived by the public. I feel legitimacy has more to do with how we view law enforcement. Our perception of law enforcement is not easy for law enforcement to control or change. The best law enforcement can do is to portray themselves as fair, respectful and polite but that is not a direct path to legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteChia-Hui (Danielle) Sze
Your discussion on Tom Tyler’s procedural justice is on point, and I agree with the notion that people weigh fairness as more important than outcome, but I want to throw a counterpoint out there. What if people who say they value fairness are doing so just because fairness is a means to an end of a valuable outcome? For example, if two people are speeding on a highway, and a police officer stops one of them, that speeder might just say they weren’t treated fairly (the other guy was speeding too so why did the cop stop me?) in order to get out of a ticket or to exculpate themselves from blame. However, at the end of the day, they were breaking the law by speeding and the police officer was just doing his/her job. So it is hard to gauge police legitimacy just from the opinions of those who have interacted with the police, for these people are usually a selected sample of the population (the police only stop people who they believe have broken or will break the rules). In the end, I agree with your conclusion that we need to start focusing on building legitimacy, I just worry that this is going to be a very challenging task.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Berry-Smith