Law Enforcement Philosophies, Psychological Theories, Models of Police Behavior, Policing Styles Concerning the Individual Officer, And Stress Associated with The Life of a Police Officer
Law enforcement is an essential activity in the society that is used as a means to supervise human behavior and to ascertain that the laws and the regulations that have been set by the society are not only adhered to but are also followed. The enforcement of this law assumes many forms, which include statutes, ordinances, regulations, zoning laws and codes of administration among others.
Policing is a subset of the enforcement of law that deals with the process of regulation of the law enforcement function. Law enforcement and policing borrow from the philosophies of legal, public policy, systems, and global perspectives. These perspectives are all interrelated and tend to occur in association. Enforcing the law is not an easy task. It requires the exhibition of certain behaviors that are based on the personality of the officer. Additionally, it exposes them to numerous stresses, both physical and psychological.
Background Information
Law enforcement is a fundamental process and means through which human behavior is supervised in a formal way to ascertain that the laws and the regulations that have been set by the society are not only adhered to but are also followed. It is also a formal way of ensuring that the society has a given level of stability and security to enable its members to carry on with their daily livelihoods.
The enforcement of this law assumes many forms, which include statutes, ordinances, regulations, zoning laws and codes of administration among others. This form of enforcements of the law are authorized in a legal manner through the philosophy of police powers. These powers refer to the lawful authority that is accorded to the government through voting by the citizens to enact the laws and regulations with respect to the health, morals, welfare, and the safety of the people in the society (Alpert, 2015).
These powers are performed by different levels of the government within the United States of America, and entails the formulation and the regulation of the water and sewer systems, systems for transportation and highways, systems for monetary regulation, fire protection, medical and healthcare systems, parks and recreational areas, an assistance that is general to the individuals who are deprived economically, among others. The implication of these is that the police powers accord authority to the agencies in charge of law enforcement to act on behalf of the citizens.
The law enforcement process, as mentioned earlier is a formal process whose sanctioning comes through voting by the citizens, in representative democracies such as the one in the United States of America. In such democracies, there exists three arms of the government and the law enforcement role is given to the executive arm of this government.
The executive arm comprise of the President whom is the head of the federal government, the governor, who is the executive head of the state level of government, and the mayor who is the executive head of the local government. Through voting, citizens give these heads and their representatives the authority and power to appoint officials of law enforcement, and to establish philosophies and policies that are general with respect to the manner in which law enforcement operates in the nation (Alpert, 2015).
The other arms of the government are not left out either. They have the ability to influence either directly or indirectly the law enforcement function of this executive arm. The legislative arm of government accords the necessary authority that is statutory upon which the activities of the law enforcement officials are dependent.
This authority entails their right to lawfully use varying degrees of force to attain the goals and the objectives of law enforcement. It also defines the behaviors that when demonstrated in a particular setting are deemed to be criminal in nature. The judiciary on the other hand performs the role of reviewing the actions executed by the officials of law enforcement based on the rules that have been established through the constitution, civil law, evidence, and criminal procedures (Alpert, 2015).
Such reviews are carried out during the proceedings of the judiciary, which may entail evidence hearings, criminal and civil trials. Through these reviews, the judiciary provides the general idea of how law enforcement should be carried out in a specific context (Alpert, 2015).
Law enforcement and policing are concepts that are interrelated. It is therefore important to understand their relationship. While law enforcement, as a function, is carried out by all levels of government and enforced through regulations, codes of administration, and laws in relation to the welfare, safety, and health of the society, policing is a subset of the enforcement of law that deals with the process of regulation of this law enforcement function (Alpert, 2015).
Policing is observed by the activities of the criminal justice system that deals with the criminal detection, followed by investigation, and the prosecution. It also deals with prevention of criminal activities (Alpert, 2015). The activity of policing in the United States is carried out by policing agencies at all the three levels of government. At the federal level, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is in charge. At the state level, the state police, highway patrols, and the criminal investigations units carry out policing. At the local level, the local police departments, offices of the sheriffs, campus police among others do the policing (Alpert, 2015).
Philosophies of Law Enforcement
There are four concepts that have been used as founding philosophies for law enforcement. These are the legal approach, the public policy approach, the systems theory approach, and the global approach (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
The Legal Approach
This philosophy operates on the overall idea of “the law is the law”. It is a philosophy in which human behavior is viewed from a perspective that is rule-based, in which obedience and respect to the law is a mandatory requirement and obligation of every person within the society, and that the law is the common guide to behavior. This approach is often used by those who strongly advocate for the control of crime through severe punishment for those who commit infractions (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
In this particular approach to law enforcement, the law enforcement officials are put in a position that is awkward based on their swearing to protect the laws of both the nation and their state. These officials recognize that a strict enforcement of the law would see so many people getting arrested or even be summoned for breaking any of the laws.
Thus, they are made to assess carefully every human behavior based on the “letter” and the “spirit” of the law (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013). If every aspect of the letter of the law is adhered to by these officials, it implies that anyone who violates any of the laws will call the police intervention. If they adhere to the spirit of the law on the other hand, it implies that the officers will consider certain contextual factors that influence human behavior, and which may lead one to breaking the law.
In this case, certain laws may go without being enforced in their entirety and certain violations may call for informal handling such as verbal reprimands or even warnings. Others may go without any police intervention (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
The process of evaluation, as outlined above, forces the enforcers of the law to utilize both selective enforcement and their discretion. Discretion refers to the process in which the officer makes a decision to use one alternative from among numerous other viable alternatives. This form of decision making is not provided for by the law but is acknowledged by both the judiciary and the profession.
The understanding that supports this acknowledgement, and that has revolutionized the current legal approach to law enforcement is that the police cannot enforce all the laws and regulations that have been enacted. Thus, selective enforcement, which is a product of discretion, allows the law enforcing officials to enforce specific laws in different contexts based on their assessment of situation, or the priorities that the agency in which they belong have (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
The above is contrary to the concept of full enforcement, which is part of this approach. Full enforcement entails the enforcement of all the laws regardless of the situation or context. In an ideal situation, this is neither practical nor possible. This kind of enforcement is often given as a justification by the officials when they intervene in situations like those dealing with gang offenses, drugs, gun violence or offenses of the traffic (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
The above said, existing empirical evidence has failed to support this philosophy of law enforcement because they have not demonstrated that through the passing and the enforcement of all criminal laws, all social problems in the society can be solved as this approach suggests (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
Public Policy Approach
This philosophy comprises of the rules and regulations established by various legislative bodies and the law enforcement agencies. In this philosophy, the social ills of the society are identified and a solution is formulated in the form of either a law or a regulation.
For instance, if they it is proven that domestic violence is the cause of separations in families and violent behavior in children, a bill can be passed into law that places a severe punishment to all facilitators of domestic violence in order to safeguard the family unit and protect children from such scenes. Additionally, policies can also be formulated to address issues of public concerns with respect to their welfare, safety, and health (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
As such, this philosophy has been fundamental in contemporary teaching of law enforcement due to its dynamic approach. This is because it has allowed law enforcement to not only be concerned but also to be proactive in handling of community challenge. It has allowed the enforcers of the law to carry out interventions that are suitable for a particular problem at a particular time.
Additionally, it has allowed the collaboration between the community, legislative bodies, and the officials of law enforcement, and in the process increased accountability and transparency (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
The formal role of making these public policies has been the function of the executive arm of the government, with the help of the legislative arm that enacts them. The police chief, sheriff, or the head of the police department on the other hand have been the final authority when it comes to enforcing the policies.
However, according to this philosophy, public policies have to follow the set protocols and involve the necessary internal procedures and issues of management, legal influences, and the political requirements (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
Systems Approach
In the systems philosophy, the whole environment in which a social issue lies is viewed with the aim of analyzing how the forces and influences in this context contribute to the social concern. In this case, law enforcement is viewed in terms of the impact the environment it operates in has over its effectiveness (Adderley, 2013).
By considering law enforcement through this philosophy, law enforcers are able to consider the impact and the influence other factors of the environment have in the society. They are also able to understand impact their decisions have, and the probable implications of the resulting actions on other functions within the community. It therefore considers the formal and informal social controls, economic factors, social influences, and politics, and the role they play in commission of crime and enforcement of the law (Adderley, 2013).
Global Approach
This is an extension of the systems perspective discussed above. However, it differs from the systems approach in that in this philosophy, law enforcement is administered with the consideration of not only the local environmental factor within the society but also world events and the influences that international relations have on the nation’s health, welfare and safety.
In this case, law enforcement is dependent on the security and stability of other countries that any nation has direct or indirect ties with (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013).
Psychological theory of Law Enforcement
Social psychologists from the early years of 1950s believed that alternatives for utilizing instrumental approach in enforcing the law existed. They demonstrated this through studies like “Why people Obey the Law” that such alternatives were not effective in the enforcing of authority that was legal but also in attaining compliance with the requirements of the law when compared with instrumental mechanisms in numerous settings within the society (Tyler, Goff, & MacCoun, 2015). This gave birth to the psychological theory in law enforcement (Tyler, Goff, & MacCoun, 2015).
According to proponents of this theory, the behavior of an individual is determined by the level of their belief or disbelief in the appropriateness of deferring to the authorities that enforce the law (Tyler, Goff, & MacCoun, 2015).
This belief is etched on legitimacy, in which individuals in a society believe that the people who are in power are worthy of ruling over them and making decisions that can directly or indirectly influence the manner in which they live and co-exist in a society. Thus, this belief accords the people the ability to decide whether to obey the law and the enforcers of the law (Tyler, Goff, & MacCoun, 2015).
The aim of legal authorities, including the police and the courts, and the law itself is legitimate in the face of the members of the society to be able to enforce the law. They should be in a position to make the citizens believe in the power and the rule of the law, and in the individual upon which the responsibility of ensuring that the law is respected, obeyed, and enforced is bestowed.
Models of Police Behavior
The Authoritarian Model
Theorists, between the years of 1960s and 1970s, believed that the use or misuse of power by a police officer was based on their personalities that took after authoritarianism that predisposed them to the use of force. They defined authoritarianism as a group of beliefs that encompassed a strong devotion to values that were both conventional and associated with the middle class.
The police officers with this personality tend to think in a rigid manner, are less flexible; tend to identify themselves with powerful people in the society, and value public exhibition of toughness and strength (Sarver & Miller, 2014).
The Police Culture Model
The proponents of this model believe that the behavior exhibited by any police officer is related to their culture that pressures them to have views regarding policing that are similar. For instance, this culture requires them to be suspicious, isolated from those that they consider outsiders, and portray loyalty that is considered extreme towards their colleagues.
While evidence does not exist to support the claim that these aspects comprise police culture, they have significantly influenced the behavior of police officers (Chan, 1996).
Policing Style and Law Enforcement
Research studies and most of the literature published on the styles of policing have described three main styles in law enforcement. These include the watchman style, the legalistic style, and the service style (Zhao & Hassell, 2005). The watchman style of policing is founded on maintaining order within the society.
In this style, the police officer assesses the violations made through the examination of consequences that are both personal and immediate for the offense one has committed rather than considering the legal aspect of that offense. They utilize maximum possible discretion through this style and the aim is to maintain peace within the community (Zhao & Hassell, 2005).
The legalistic style on the other hand focuses on a stringent enforcement of the rule of law. Police officers using this style have been shown to make the highest number of traffic citations and arrests. Most of the calls they receive are handled formally through the making of an arrest or the making of a formal complaint (Zhao & Hassell, 2005).
The final style of policing is that of service. In this style, priority is given to all forms of assistance that the public needs with regards to maintaining law, order, and safety without giving preference to strict adherence to law enforcement as per the legalistic style or maintenance of order as per the watchman style.
This implies that service style is the bridge where the two extremes of policing meet. It however, just like in watchman style, allows the police officer to exercise a certain level of discretion (Zhao & Hassell, 2005).
Stress Associated with The Life of a Police Officer
Stress often forms part of everyone’s life. However, police stress is special as it describes the pressures that are negative, which are associated with the work of enforcing the law (Garbarino, Cuomo, Chiorri, & Magnavita, 2013). Police officers get exposed on a daily basis to the negative sides of human being. Pain, indecency, dealing with suspicion, and at times handling hostile situations such as public unrest and riots often takes a toll of these officers, subjecting them to an immense level of stress (Garbarino, Cuomo, Chiorri, & Magnavita, 2013).
The stresses that police officers are subjected to can be categorised into four groups. These include those that are inherent in their work, those that arise internally due to the policies and practices of their department, those that are external due to the society and criminal justice system, and the internal stresses that the individual officer confronts (Garbarino, Cuomo, Chiorri, & Magnavita, 2013).
The police officer also gets stressed from the threats they encounter to their safety, the safety of their family, and their health. They are also subjected to boredom and an alternation of alertness and the need for mobilized energy that comes suddenly with the continual arrival of new cases that require their attention. Such anxiety coupled with the responsibility the public has given them of ensuring lives are protected confer a significant amount of stress on them (Garbarino, Cuomo, Chiorri, & Magnavita, 2013).
Conclusion
Law enforcement provides means that are formal for the supervision of human behavior. This supervision ascertains that the laws and the regulations that guide the society are adhered to and are followed. It is fundamental in ensuring that the society has a given level of stability and security to enable its members to carry on with their daily livelihoods.
It is done at all levels of government and ensures that the health, security, and safety of people is maintained. Policing is a subset of the enforcement of laws that deals with the manner in which law enforcement is done. These two concepts are based on numerous philosophies and the style of policing, which can be watchman, service, or legalistic in nature. Also, policing and police work is not an easy task as it subjects those involved to numerous stresses that are either physical or psychological.
References
Adderley, P. S. (2013). Criminal Network Analysis inside Law Enforcement Agencies: A Data-Mining System Approach under the National Intelligence Model. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15(4), 323 – 337.
Alpert, R. G. (2015). Critical Issues in policing: Contemporary Readings (7th ed.). Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
Chan, J. (1996). Changing Police Culture. The British Journal of Criminology, 36(1), 109–134.
Conser, J. A., Paynich, R., & Gingerich, a. T. (2013). Law Enforcement in the United States. Jones & Bartlett.
Garbarino, S., Cuomo, G., Chiorri, C., & Magnavita, N. (2013). Association of work-related stress with mental health problems in a special police force unit. BMJ Open, 3, e002791.
Sarver, M. B., & Miller, a. H. (2014). Police chief leadership: styles and effectiveness. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 37(1).
Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, a. R. (2015). The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75-109.
Zhao, J. “., & Hassell, a. K. (2005). Policing Styles and Organizational Priorities: Retesting Wilson’s Theory of Local Political Culture. Police Quarterly, 8(4), 411-430.
Relevant Law Enforcement Posts
Black Lives Matter and Police Brutality in the United States
Did you find any useful knowledge relating to law enforcement and policing in this post? What are the key facts that grabbed your attention? Let us know in the comments. Thank you.
