Police Misconduct and Public Relations

The potential for police misconduct is a problem that probably arises out of several contributing factors; however, as Skolnick rather eloquently explains, it is rarely seen in the public eye as anything more than a government employee's abuse of power. In addition, Skolnick writes that this cynical public attitude toward officers fosters a proverbial "wall" of distrust between the groups and offers law enforcement an easy justification for misconduct.

Touching on the now-notorious psychological theory of inter-group bias, Skolnick writes extensively of officers' difficulty forming or retaining normal social relationships with those outside of the police force. His studies indicate that police are far more likely to socialize outside of work with other police, and seem to have a genuine devotion to their co-workers and their profession. While these factors probably go a long way in terms of cohesion within a police force, they also bitterly isolate the individual officer from society as a whole, leading to a steady deterioration of what is considered "normal" interpretation of civilians and their intentions. As they grow to instinctively defend their own from the barbs of a society that believes itself to be oppressed, it stands to reason that justification of misconduct by virtue of necessity becomes less and less of a stretch.

As police begin to act increasingly suspicious and authoritative towards civilians, however, a similar effect takes hold on the receiving end. Civilians will likewise begin to view officers as bullying or unnecessarily demanding, contributing to an already present disdain and increasing the likelihood of hostile encounters. In today's society, it is not uncommon for even a routine traffic stop to turn immediately hostile as a result of socialized misconceptions and inter-group bias.

In the time between the initial stop and the officer's appearing at the window, a driver has probably already convinced himself of several stereotypical falsehoods; that he has been "baited" by the officer, that the officer is simply making the traffic stop to meet a quota, or that the officer is misusing time that could be spent catching "real" criminals. These misconceptions can trigger immediate belligerence, which an uneasy officer often perceives as a threat to his own well-being. What follows is what appears to be a belittling and overly authoritarian approach toward a civilian that perceives himself to be "innocent." To the objective onlooker, the contributing attitudes on both sides of the encounter are most likely unwarranted and not based in reality. However, this is a false reality that has been validated by decades of unwavering blame shifting.

Any search for a legitimate social solution to this problem will be hampered by the inherent necessity for an imbalance of power between the public and law enforcement. In order to effectively pursue justice and reduction of crime, a police force must have a legitimate source of power and authority in order to gain the "upper hand" on those acting outside of the law. Conversely, a democratically minded society must display some level of apprehension towards authority in order to operate in earnest. The key, therefore, is to strike a balance between healthy suspicion which sniffs out unjust abuse of power and an instinctive trust in the good intentions of law enforcement.

The first step, I believe, must be to open the veins of communication between civilians and officers often constricted by shadowy administrative intentions. This means the reduction or elimination of traffic citation quotas, potentially replacing them with a lighter "traffic stop" quota system. In this system, an officer might only be required to make a certain number of traffic stops, leaving it to personal discretion whether to issue a citation or warning. Because citation quotas are often used to meet budgetary requirements, this may necessarily present a financial problem. This must be remedied through more conventional, transparent means of government budget solutions such as tax levies or program cuts.

The public will undoubtedly rationalize this as a means of redistribution, forcing "innocent" citizens to foot the bill for the benefit of frequent traffic violators. However, it is important to bear in mind that the public already fancies itself as victimized by law enforcement officers.

This solution, however, is not simply founded in a moral conviction to increase government transparency or point the proverbial finger at the correct entities. I believe that while public unrest is undesirable in any situation, it is far more imperative that the everyday citizen look with trust upon the street-walking officer than the paper-pushing politician. Increased civilian cooperation should not only foster a safer society, but it could also increase the efficiency of law enforcement, resulting in a natural reduction in the financial demands of related departments. In this way, a solution such as this could eventually make partial amends for the budgetary problems it presents.

Admittedly, blame for the current disparity cannot be placed squarely on the shoulders of public administration, nor can the problem be totally resolved through such methods. There remains an unavoidable truth that much of the conflict springs from misconduct by both police officers and members of the general public. While the natural instinct of either side will be to demand that the other concede first (as they believe the problem sprang from the other side in the first place), I believe true reconciliation must begin with the police. This is not because I believe the problem is rooted in police misconduct, but simply because their actions can be "controlled" in such a way that is impossible of an entire society. Far from demanding that officers concede wrongdoing, however, the "image" of law enforcement can be altered in gentle, more subtle ways.

There are countless programs that, at little or no financial cost, can help highlight the role of an officer as a "public servant." The key, I believe, is to increase the amount of interactions that occur between on-duty officers and civilians outside of law enforcement situations. Programs such as free "don't ask, don't tell" rides for intoxicated citizens present several advantages to law enforcement, public administration, and citizens. Public safety is increased through reduction of drunk driving and alcohol-related crime, officers come to be viewed as allies rather than foes to intoxicated citizens, and police presence in "problem areas" can be increased in a way that appears positive to the public.

Likewise, a return to the "street-walking beat" method of policing may help re-establish officers as government-employed citizens rather than faceless enforcers, hidden behind car windshields or motorcycle helmets. While motorized policing obviously presents some crime control advantages and should by no means be eliminated, the integration of more foot officers would create endless potential for friendly interaction with society. Simply attaching a name and face to an individual's perception of law enforcement can go a long way in highlighting the humanity and good faith of police officers.

In short, I believe this to be a problem far less complicated than its solution. The good faith and moral consciousness required of police officers in a democratic society already exists; the task is simply one of peeling back layers of political blame shifting and decades of "us-vs.-them" justification on all sides of the law.