KEITH L WILLIAMS

Inspector in the Metropolitan Police Department

PEEL'S PRINCIPLES AND THEIR ACCEPTANCE BY AMERICAN POLICE: ENDING 175 YEARS OF REINVENTION
Since the inception of modem policing in 1829, the policing st>'Ies of Britain and the United States have run incongruent courses. While the Metropolitan Police Department of London has stayed true to the principles first articulated by Sir Robert Peel American policing has undergone several sweeping changes in the administration of service. These reinventions ha\e hampered the establishment of a true ideology of police service in America. Through a comparative historical overview of these policing models, this article will strive to explain the reason behind the lack of acceptance of Peel's original nine principles by police in America. Further discussion will focus on the current acceptance of these principles by many police agencies within the United States in their community policing missions and ask what might have been had the Peelian \irtues been accepted from the beginning.

Introduction In 1829, after much debate, the London Metropolitan Police Act officially sanctioned a new arm of government. This entity was an innovative approach to social control in that it provided for a full-time presence of uniformed personnel in communities established to prevent crime and disorder.^ Many would agree that this was the dawning of the creation of the modem police and Sir Robert Peel was credited with its conception. America, during the same period, was faced with some of the same issues as London was but was somewhat slower to react with police presence. However, the first agencies were established in the 1830s. There is no debate that the forces of London and the United States were similar in some respects and dramatically different in others; this article will hopefully generate discussion about what could have been if Peel's principles were accepted in toto and applied to the police in America at the time of their inception. This article will attempt to discern the reasons behind the United States' failure, or refusal, to accept, in whole, the Peelian principles.
The Police Joumal Volume 76 (2003) 97

The first section of this writing will be an historic overview of the establishment of PeePs police, the principles on which they were derived and the effect that their formation had on society. Second, an historical view of the police in the United States will be presented for comparative purposes. During the course of this article several questions will be addressed. Did the fact that obstacles and differences arose in the formulation of American police create the environment where the United States failed, or refused, to accept the Peelian virtues? What could have been, then, had they been accepted? Would there have been a need for a Reform Era? Would the Professional Era then be an even more dramatic removal from the original concept of policing? Have we, in the United States, gone back to a Peelian-like version of policing with community policing objectives? If we hadn't lost those 175 years, what sort of evolution could have occurred in policing? Finally, can we, as Americans, even accept the Peelian Principles, given our disjointed array of police agencies and mandates? History In 1829, after almost 50 years of debate following the Gordon Riots in 1780, Parliament passed the London Metropolitan Police Act. The passing of this act, formulated by Sir Robert Peel, established a full-time, uniformed police force for the city of London.- This force was created for the purpose of prevention of crime, which was a dramatic departure from the private thieftakers and constable-watch systems that preceded this era. The police were also purposefully structured to be different from the military in their objectives and use of force. The social forces at work in the late 1700s and early 1800s in England included a high rate of population growth in the cities, particularly in London, as industrialisation flourished. Because of this sudden growth, there was a breakdown in social control, characterised by disorder, crime, riots and public health issues. These problems, along with the influx of people to the cities, caused concern to the ruling and middle classes, who realised the system of constable-watch could not handle the problems effectively.- An alternative solution to dealing with these societal problems needed to be identified and constructed in order to provide protection and safety. One alternative that was attempted was to utilise the military or militia to quell the riots. Unfortunately, it was not the military's objective to provide this sort of protection and they were too forceful in their handling of many of the protests.
98 The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003)

Increasing the number of constables was also attempted, but was only a temporary solution to a long-term problem."^ What finally ai'ose was a government-funded, quasi-military and continuous structure of patrolling the neighbourhoods with the focus on preventing crime and disorder. The estabhshment of the police in London was not without its detractors and it took the work of some of the brightest minds, plus the increased fear of a flourishing criminal element, to establish the need withm England. Jeremy Bentham, Henry and John Fielding and others advocated the creation of this organisation for the purposes of preventing crime.' It took the work of Peel, Britain's Home Secretary, to bring these thoughts and philosophies into a legal framework to convince Parliament of the desperate need for this new arm of the government. The very fact that Britain needed to be convinced, even in the face of rising crime, shows how much careful consideration must have been put into the mandate of the police at this time. Legislators and citizens were worried that the establishment of a 'standing army' of uniformed police would produce a means for the government to have a potential despot-like control over the citizenry.^ Government officials themselves were concemed by the twin fears of 'governmental expense and power\^ The sanctioning of the Home Office surely led to the success of the establishment of the police in London. As an agency of the national government there was an ability to set high personnel standards and control the work of the members of the force. The insulation of the commissioners who led the force from the people it actually policed resulted in some early resistance, but eventually this gave way to a legacy of professionalism and civility.^ The police had established an impersonal authority derived not from the local communities standards, but from legal powers and restraints.*^ This impersonal authority was analogous to the formal institutional power that was granted to the police by the national government, in particular the Home Office. The formality of the position led to high levels of discipline and conduct by the officers. One quote from the time likened the London police officer to an 'institution rather than a man\'^ Several other factors also played a role in determining the early course of action for the police. Peel recruited his officers from outside the City to prevent any form of corruption from taking hold. The force was assigned specific areas of patrol or beats to ensure continuity. Further, structure was borrowed from the military to provide a hierarchical chain of command for
The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003) 99

coordination and control.'^ What led to the success of the police chiefly were the nine principles that Peel established as the guiding force for the members of the organisation. This philosophical underpinning meant that there was a clear mission in mind for the police and reduced the ambiguity in the role that the police would play in society. PeeTs thinking surrounding the formation of the Metropolitan Police was reduced to the following nine principles: (1) the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder; (2) the ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions; (3) police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public; (4) the degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionally to the necessity of the use of physical force; (5) police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law; (6) police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient; (7) police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence; (8) police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usuip the powers of the judiciary; (9) the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. With these principles. Peel laid the framework for one of the most important creations in law enforcement history. More than 175 years later, the guiding principles formulated in 1829 are still at the forefront of many police agencies' mission statements worldwide, as will be illustrated later.
100 The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003)

American leaders knew a good thing when they saw it and, when faced with similar elements of social disorder, ^borrowed^ some of the fundamental tenets of the London police. The early American police forces modelled themselves after the London police force, but not in its entirety. Deployment for preventive patrol carried over and was supposed to be the major facet for the US police.'- Apart from a few other parallels, such as a similar military-model structure and beat patrols, the police forces were dissimilar in all respects. Perhaps the most important difference was that the American police agencies found themselves to be reflective of the communities that they policed. They were reliant, therefore, on personal authority for legitimacy. Not only were the officers drawn from the exact communities they patrolled but, contrary to the London model, the American officers were encouraged to respect the informal expectations of the area. The American officers, embodied by the New York City police, conformed with the preexisting democratic ideals of the government.'"^ While the ideals espoused were representative of the American form of government, they had catastrophic impacts on the conduct of the police. Instead of being disciplined and separate from the political machine, the police in this era were the embodiment of corruption and avarice. The local politicians directly controlled the police departments, to the extent that should an incumbent lose an election the entire force would be replaced with a faction from the winning party.'"^ There were no real guiding principles for the American police to follow, which led to ambiguity in their roles and they became the social repairmen of the cities. The local political machines guided the American police in this era and were therefore more responsive to the communities: while a laudable mission theoretically, what it meant was that the police were expected to be social servants. Police during this era supervised elections,''"^ enforced health regulations, operated ambulances and housed the homeless.'^ These functions were a dramatic departure from the ideals of preventing crime as a foremost objective for the police. The fact that the local politicians appomted all police officers to the job meant that there was a complete lack of formal training and personnel standards. Brutality and corruption were particularly rampant among American officers because this informal institutional power meant that the officers had to rely on their personal authority to accomplish their mission. This lack of institutional power led to a lack of institutional restraints, which, paradoxically.
The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003) iOl

meant that the American policeman ended up with more power, whether legitimate or not, than his London counterpart.^^ In all, the police of the 1800s in America were seen, rightfully so, as the arm of the local politicians; they were corrupt, brutal, disorganised and inconsistent in application of law and duty. While they had broad discretion, they lacked the knowledge and ability to establish themselves as legitimate law enforcement professionals, as envisaged by Peel. What followed, in the early 1900s, was a full-scale attack on the make-up and organisation of all local government factions, with the focus of reforming the police in the forefront. It was natural, that the police, being the most conspicuous arm of the local political bosses, would be one of the most visible targets of the reformers. It is acknowledged that there was a Reform Era that changed the culture of government and, specifically, the police operation within it in the United States. What is most perplexing is that these reforms moved the police away from the idea that they should be 'in tune' with the communities they served. The focus of reform was to institutionalise efficiency, and create a bureaucratic hierarchy and management structure as tools for crime detection instead of crime prevention. This period evolved into the Professional Era of policing, where the police further distanced themselves from the general population and looked for strict rules and accountability structures to instil discipline into the police. The reform was a reaction to perceived ills within the police and society's response to them. Let us then compare concisely the differences in the police ideologies, London v America, from their inception points: London Nationally operated Centralised Impersonal authority derived from laws Low discretion High institutional power High restraint High personnel standards and training Not reflective of community Civil and professional Deployed for prevention
102

America Locally controlled Decentralised Personal authority derived from self and political machines High discretion Low institutional power Low restraint Non-existent standards Reflective of community Brutal and corrupt Social servants
The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003)

The theory that the London force was essentially policing a homogeneous society with widely shared expectations which led to their stability and acceptance is given some credence as a reason for their success. Conversely, the American forceps instability was the result of a heterogeneous society with few shared expectations.'^ This theory, at least from the American perspective, can be rejected by contemplating Alexis de Tocqueville's observations of American life during this same period: The observations I have made here on events may also be applied to opinions. Two things are surprising in the United States: the mutability of the greater part of human actions, and the singular stability of certain principles. Men are in constant motion; the mind of man appears almost unmoved. When once an opinion has spread over the country and struck root there, it would seem that no power on earth is strong enough to eradicate it. In the United States, general principles in religion, philosophy, nwralit}\ and even politics, do not ran\ ov at least are only modified by a hidden and often imperceptible process: even the grossest prejudices are obliterated with incredible slowness, amidst the continual friction of men and things.'^ (Emphasis added) Regardless of the theoretical viewpoint, it is still an interesting dichotomy that the American police officer had less training, was more brutal and had less legitimate authority, yet had more power and higher discretion than a London officer who was more civil and professional, had higher restraint and was legitimised by the national government. Perhaps this is reflective of the dichotomy between the nations at the time; both were democratic nations, yet Great Britain was still ruled by an aristocratic class structure, while the United States imparted higher ideals and afforded the vote to more individuals. What is called the central paradox of policing by historian Roger Lane explains this phenomenon: The more highly centralized, bureaucratic and essentially undemocratic nature of the police administration in London produced a more professional level of police work than did the structurally more democratic form of police administration in the United States. Thus, undemocratic means produced results that were more consistent with the principles of democracy - fair and equal treatment of all people.-*^
The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003) 103

What Might Have Been An interesting line of reasoning developed from the preceding sections would be to label the American police, who were from a highly democratic belief structure, as more oppressive than the undemocratic system of the London Metropolitan Police. Oppression is defined as, 'Exercising power arbitrarily and often unjustly; tyrannical'.^' While they have never been labelled as such, the American police's culture of corruption and brutal street-comer justice would lead one to believe that they wielded their power over citizens with impunity in the early years of their formation. From every historical vantage point it is clear that the American police were oppressive in their exercising of power and, at times, tyrannical in their use of discretion to carry out the goals of the political machines. The blatant use of police as an instrument of urban machine politics created the view that they were not only corrupt, but dumb and brutal as well." The reason this is so important is that this is the very failing that Great Britain was trying to avoid when setting up their police force. Peel extolled anti-oppressive ideals in many of his nine principles. What follows is that, for some reason, the United States neglected to recognise the ability of the police to be an oppressive force, whether cross-culturally, racially, or in general. This failure to accept the terms of Peel's principles when devising American police agencies led to the need for reform and a reinvention of the police role in society, effectively negating more than 50 years of social effort. If the tenets of PeeKs Metropolitan Police Act had been put into place within the American police forces, many of the problems that led to the reforms would have been averted. For instance, the same social phenomenon was being experienced on both sides of the ocean during the industrial era; more workingclass people were moving to the cities. Peel and London Metropolitan Police recruited members from outside the cities to instil 'professional detachment from the citizen's' and 'professional impartiality'. American police leaders did just the opposite, recruiting and appointing from within the local establishment, which quickly led to dependence on the politicians and eventually to corruption.--^ The leaders of policing in the United States had just as easy access to the pool of candidates as in the London Model of recruiting yet failed to recognise its qualities, thus creating an environment for corruption that still carries over today. Use of force is also an area where the American police quickly overran their legitimacy. While the 'Bobbies' carried
104 The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

truncheons only, the American police quickly became enamoured with firearms and by the late 1800s began issuing them to their officers officially.-^ Though granted the ability to utilise deadly force, many agencies did not create clear policies for the use of firearms until the mid-1900s, Conversely, police in London started with a principle regarding the use of force and are still not armed, except in extreme circumstances. This principle stated, Tolice use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient/ As late as the 1960s, police use of force in America was unregulated.-'' Even in recent years, police in America have found that they needed to standardise or revamp their use-of-force policies after complaints of abuse. Examining these two elements of policing shows that acceptance of the Peelian virtues of restraint and civility from the onset would have counteracted the need for reform in American policing, since the police would have already been acting in accordance with the standards that the reformers were advocating. What then was the fear of translating the Enslish version of policing into American culture? Was America so democratic that it did not wish to accept a national police force? Did the feeling of colonialism still have a strong hold on America, leading it to feel that the police were too 'English'? Did the Americans have such distrust in institutions that they could not allow the police to become an institution? Perhaps all of these factors, and many others, played a role in creating the police as a highly discretionary, yet informally sanctioned organisation. What comes to mind is another of De Tocqueville's observations that Americans empowered their elected officials with great discretion since they elected them and could remove them if they were dissatisfied. The police, directly answering to the elected officials, were, by default, guided by broad public opinion instead of formal limitations on their personal power.'^ The police were reflective more of a man than an institution, but this fact meant that they represented the areas they policed rather than the public good.-'' The Professional Era was a natural evolution from the Reform Era. Led by innovators such as August Vollmer of Berkeley, California, the police began separating politics from administration in the development of the new police style. The organisations began instituting formal training for recruits and members of the force, along with standards required for entry
The Police Joumal Volume 76 (2003) 105

into the job, something that the London force had established from the outset. As time progressed, civil service statutes mandated certain requirements of the police and their organisations. In fact, reformists such as VoUmer took the civil service mandate of merit, which focused primarily on how successful an agency was in removing political influence from appointments and promotions, and capitalised on it. His feeling towards merit, more in line with competence and performance of members of a police force, further ingrained the legitimacy that the police garnered from the stakeholders they served.^^ Chiefs were now seen as capable of running the departments without political influence and were given expanded powers to respond to a burgeoning crime problem. In order to accomplish this the agencies found that they needed to develop a system of centralised command structure, another of PeeFs perspectives that was finally gaining credibility in America. In order to facilitate this system, the lines of accountability previously drawn on political boundaries had to be redrawn for efficiency and accountability to the agency, as opposed to the ward boss. The command structure, in most instances, was similar to the rank structure of the military, as was London's, which at the time was seen as a model for efficiency and accountability. This was so much the case that many of the new ^professional' chiefs were drawn from the ranks of the military officers.-^ While much of the reform of policing can be traced to several key thinkers, such as Vollmer, the transformation occurred at the same time as the reforming of many public and private industries, so the climate was ripe for the needed changes and acceptance of new ideas, in the name of progress, was endemic. Stability was acquired by virtue of the removal of the overbearing political machines and the ensuing chaos that a change in party would cause. Professionalism was viewed as organisational efficiency and crime fighting."^^ Ironically, some of the latter improvements, which are reflective of Peelian virtues, can still be seen in practice today, such as a quasi-military, bureaucratic command structure, but many feel that this may be to the detriment of reaching out to the mainstream issues of American social problems. The Professional Era of American policing was regarded as a distancing from the public by the police and a reduction in police-community relations that had an impact on how the police role in society was viewed. The reforms and professionalisation of the police in America were not in contrast to Peel's vision and subsequent principles,
106 The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

which were a foundation for establishing the police as both a law enforcement power, as well as a preventive social control mechanism. It is interesting that it took some 100 years for some of the ideals to be accepted in America. The acceptance of some of the principles and the weaving of those doctrines into American police culture shows how forward-thinking Peel was and proves, on some level, that, had they been accepted earlier, many of the reconstitutions that the police have gone through in America could have been avoided. Imagine how progressive and sophisticated policing in America could have been if it wasn't constantly reinventing itself every 50 years or so. Would there have been a need for a reform period that espoused the virtues of efficiency? Perhaps, what the Reform and Professionalism Eras established in America was that the police now considered their work as a vocation, as the Metropolitan Police of London had from the beginning. How Close Are We to Peel Now? With the advent of community policing, American police determined that the most prudent way to acquire legitimacy and authority would be to re-establish themselves as partners with the community they serve. While caution is taken to avoid the pitfalls of earlier community policing in the political era, modem-day police agencies have attempted to establish community policing as a new philosophy. This new version of policing is based on five elements for developing programmes that: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) foster a commitment to crime prevention; allow for public scrutiny of the police; hold the actions of the police accountable to the public; customise the police service; and develop community organisation/^'

Ironically, three out of the five elements directly reflect the principles championed by Peel in 1829. Does this 'philosophy^ mean that American policing has finally adopted the Peelian set of principles with which to determine the purpose of the police? One of the most effective means of establishing whether American policing was finally accepting the Peelian principles would be to examine mission statements of police agencies to determine if they have some form of the Peel principles or if the expectations voiced in the statements were similar. Chart A.I (see Appendix) is a comparison of the five large US municipal police departments, illustrating how much their
The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003) 107

mission statements borrow from Peel's nine principles (similar wording and/or parallel attitudes are highlighted). As shown in the chart, each of these agencies clearly has mirrored some or all of Peers tenets in establishing its own guiding principles. The Los Angeles Police Department not only includes two of Peel's values in its mission statement, but its Core Values and Principles include every single one of Peel's virtuous principles (see Chart A.2, Appendix)! Specifically, the LAPD utihses the following principles taken directly, almost word for word, from
^2

LAPD

PEEL

Crime Prevention Top Priority^ The basic mission for which The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alter- crime and disorder. native to repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. When the police fail to prevent crime, it becomes important to apprehend the person responsible for the crime and gather all evidence that might be used in a subsequent trial. Public Approbation of Police The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect Voluntary Law Observance The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law in order to be able to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public.
108

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

Public Cooperation The degree of public cooperation that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives. Impartial Friendly Enforcement The police seek and preserve public favour, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by readily offering individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing; by the ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by readily offering individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. Minimum Use of Force The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and waming is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the reasonable amount of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003)

The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and waming is found to be insufficient.

109

Public Are the Police The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the poHce are the public and that the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare. Limit of Police Power The police should always direct their actions strictly toward their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary by avenging individuals or the state, or authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty. Test of Police Effectiveness The test of police effectiveness is the absence of crime and the presence of public order. It is not the evidence of police action in dealing with crime and disorder.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to neighbourhood, they can effectively reduce crime.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Conclusion Does the fact that one of the largest and, arguably, most progressive police agencies in America has accepted the Peelian principles mean that American policing has finally come to recognise the virtue of these values? Doesn't the additional evidence from the other four major municipal agencies in the country lend credence to the fact that these guiding rules have finally become part of American policing, where they should have been from the outset? As a practitioner in policing, it is my opinion that one does not have to accept the notion of a nationally controlled police agency to accept the virtues of the Peelian principles. The mere fact that over 175 years later, these precepts that guided the
110 The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

formation of modern policing are still viable today speaks volumes to the brilliance of the Victorian era reformers who struck out into new territory and established a governmental branch whose main goal was to prevent crime and protect the citizens of a nation from themselves. It is truly a shame that America did not follow suit entirely instead of selectively implementing, unsuccessfully at that, these principles. Whether you believe that the police were established for social control or for the task of crime prevention, you cannot argue about the durability of PeeKs established principles and their formidable mission of survival over almost two centuries and many social climate changes. It would be all too easy to take Peel's ideologies for granted since they have been a part of the foundation of police thinking for so long. This should not be the case; these tenets are as pure and virtuous now as they were in 1829 and this can be proven by their acceptance in today's culture as guiding doctrines in the new world of policing.
Appendix

Chart A.I Comparison of five large Metropolitan Police Departments' mission statements Los Angeles Police Department It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve, to reduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance public safety while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life. Our mandate is to do so with honor and integrity, while at all times conducting ourselves with the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence. Chicago Police Department The importance of the police-community partnership is reflected in the Police Department's Mission Statement: The Chicago Police Department, as part of, and empowered by the community^ is committed to protect the lives, property and rights of all people, to maintain order, and to enforce the law impartially. We will provide quality police services in partnership with other members of the community. To fulfill our mission, we will strive to attain the highest degree of ethical behavior and professional conduct at all times.
The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003)

Dallas Police Department The Police Department, in serving the people of Dallas, strives to reduce crime and provide a safe city by: Recognizing that its goal is to help people and provide assistance at every opportunity; Providing preventive, investigative, and enforcement services; Increasing citizen satisfaction with public safety and obtaining convnunity cooperation through the Department's training, skills, and efforts; and Realizing that the Police Department alone cannot control crime, but must act in concert with the community and the rest of the Criminal Justice System. In achieving this mission, the men and women of the Dallas Police Department will conduct themselves in an ethical manner. They will: Respect and protect the rights of citizens as determined by the law: Treat citizens and their fellow employees courteously and with the same amount of dignity with which they expect to be treated themselves; Be examples of honesty and integrity in their professional and personal lives, thereby earning the public trust\ Perform their duties with the knowledge that protection of the lives and property^ of all citizens is their primary duty; and Comply with the spirit and letter of the Code of Conduct. Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department The mission of the Metropolitan Police Department is to prevent crime and the fear of crime, as we work with others to build safe and healthy communities throughout the District of Columbia. New York City Police Department To protect life and property, reduce crinie\ improve the quality of life while dealing with the citizens of this city with courtesy, professionalism, and respect, Direct, coordinate and control the efforts of seven patrol boroughs and the Special Operations Division. Provide sufficient uniformed patrol officers to respond to emergencies, minimize harm, and maximize public safety.
112 The Police Joumal Volume 76 (2003)

 Deploy resources to effectively combat crime and respond to community needs for police senices. Observe and evaluate performance, equipment and training of field personnel.
Chart A.2 LAPD Core Values and Principles Core Values

Service to Our Communities We are dedicated to enhancing public safety and reducing the fear and the incidence of crime. People in our communities are our most important customers. Our motto T o Protect and to Serve' is not just a slogan - it is our way of life. We will work in partnership with the people in our communities and do our best, within the law, to solve community problems that effect public safety. We value the great diversity of people in both our residential and business communities and serve all with equal dedication. Principles Reverence for the Law We have been given the honor and privilege of enforcing the law. We must always exercise integrity in the use of the power and authority that have been given to us by the people. Our personal and professional behavior should be a model for all to follow. We will obey and support the letter and spirit of the law. Commitment to Leadership We believe the Los Angeles Police Department should be a leader in law enforcement. We also believe that each individual needs to be a leader in his or her area of responsibility. Making sure that our values become part of our day-to-day work life is our mandate. We must each work to ensure that our co-workers, our professional colleagues, and our communities have the highest respect for the Los Angeles Police Department. Integrity in All We Say and Do Integrity is our standard. We are proud of our profession and will conduct ourselves in a manner that merits the respect of all people. We will demonstrate honest, ethical behavior in all our interactions. Our actions will match our words. We must have the courage to stand up for our beliefs and do what is right.
The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003) US

Throughout the ranks, the Los Angeles Police Department has a long history of integrity and freedom from corruption. Upholding this proud tradition is a challenge we must all continue to meet. Respect for People Working with the Los Angeles Police Department should be challenging and rewarding. Our people are our most important resource. We can best serve the many and varied needs of our communities by empowering our employees to fulfill their responsibilities with knowledge, authority, and appropriate discretion. We encourage our people to submit ideas, we listen to their suggestions, and we help them develop to their maximum potential. We believe in treating all people with respect and dignity. We show concern and empathy for the victims of crime and treat violators of the law with fairness and dignity. By demonstrating respect for others, we will eam respect for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Quality Through Continuous Improvement

We will strive to achieve the highest level of quality in all aspects of our work. We can never be satisfied with the 'status quo.' We must aim for continuous improvement in serving the people in our communities. We value innovation and support creativity. We realise that constant change is a way of life in a dynamic city like Los Angeles, and we dedicate ourselves to proactively seeking new and better ways to serve. /. Reverence for the Law The main thrust of a peace officer's duties consists of an attempt to enforce the law. In our application of the law, we must do it within a legal spirit which was so clearly set forth by the framers of the Bill of Rights, an original part of our Constitution. That bill had as its purpose elevating the rights of each citizen to a position co-equal with the state which might accuse him. Its purpose was to provide for an enforcement of the law with fundamental fairness and equity. Because of the Bill of Rights, the dignity of the individual person in America was placed in an almost sacred position of importance. A peace officer's enforcement should not be done in grudging adherence to the legal rights of the accused, but in a sincere spirit of seeking that every accused person is given all of his rights as far as it is within the powers of the police. In the discharge of our enforcement of criminal statutes, the peace
The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

officer must scrupulously avoid any conduct which would make him a violator of the law. The solution of a crime, or the arrest of a lawbreaker, can never justify the peace officer committing a felony as an expedient for the enforcement of the law. We peace officers should do our utmost to foster a reverence for the law. We can start best by displaying a reverence for the legal rights of our fellow citizens and a reverence for the law itself. 2. Crime Prevention Top Priority The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. When the police fail to prevent crime, it becomes important to apprehend the person responsible for the crime and gather all evidence that might be used in a subsequent trial. 3. Public Approbation of Police The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect. 4. Voluntcwy Lciw Obsen^ance The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law in order to be able to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public. 5. Public Cooperation The degree of public cooperation that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives. 6. Impartial Friendly Enforcement The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by readily offering individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing; by the ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by readily offering individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. 7. Minimum Use of Force The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order when the
The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the reasonable amount of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. 8. Public Are the Police The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare. 9. Limit of Police Power The police should always direct their actions strictly toward their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary by avenging individuals or the state, or authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty. 10. Test of Police Effectiveness The test of police effectiveness is the absence of crime and the presence of public order. It is not the evidence of police action in dealing with crime and disorder. / / . People Working with Police The task of crime prevention cannot be accomplished by the police alone. This task necessarily requires the willing cooperation of both the police and the public working together toward a common goal 72. People Working with People Since the police cannot be expected to be on every residential or business block, every hour of the day, a process must be developed whereby each person becomes concerned with the welfare and safety of his neighborhood. When people are working with other people in their neighborhood, they can effectively reduce crime. 13. Managers Working with Police Only line police officers perform the tasks for which police were created. They are the operating professionals. Supervisors and managers exist to define problems, to establish objectives, and to assist line police officers in the accomplishment of the police mission.
116 The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003)

The evaluation of a manager should be based on the improvement and excellence of his subordinates in the achievement of organizational goals. The lifers blood of good management is a thoroughly systematic, two-way circulation of information, feelings, and perceptions throughout the organization. 14. Police Working with Police For many reasons, some specialization of work is necessary. Specialization should be created only when vitally necessary. When specialization is created, organization should be adjusted to ensure that the specialists and generalists who serve the same citizens work closely together on the common problems in as informal an organizational structure as possible. This will tend to ensure a unity of effort, resources, and the effective service to a common goal. 75. Police Working with Criminal Justice System It must be recognised that the police and the people alone cannot successfully resolve the problems of crime. The criminal justice system as a whole, in order to properly serve the public, must operate as a total system with all of its various elements working together. The close cooperation of the police with prosecutors, courts, and correctional officers is necessary in order to ensure the development of a safer community. 16. Police/Press Relationships One of the first and most fundamental considerations of this nation's founders in drafting the Bill of Rights was to provide for a free press as an essential element of the First Amendment to the Constitution. They recognised that a well-informed citizenry is vital to the effective functioning of a democracy. Police operations profoundly affect the public and therefore arouse substantial public interest. Likewise, public interest and public cooperation bear significantly on the successful accomplishment of any police mission. The police should make every reasonable effort to serve the needs of the media in informing the public about crime and other police problems. This should be done with an attitude of openness and frankness whenever possible. The media should have access to personnel, at the lowest level in a Department, who are fully informed about the subject of a press inquiry. The media should be told all that can be told that will not impinge on a person's right to a fair trial, seriously impede a
The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003)

criminal investigation, imperil a human life, or seriously endanger the security of the people. In such cases, the minimum information should be given which will not impinge on the four areas and we should merely state that nothing more can be said. In all other matters in our relationship with the media in dealing with current news, every member of the Department should make every reasonable effort consistent with accomplishing the police task in providing the media representatives with full and accurate material. 17. Management by Objectives In order to effectively deal with the most important problems, objectives must be established. The establishment of objectives and the means used to ensure that they are reached must include the participation of those involved in the task. The setting of an objective has very little meaning without the participation of those involved. 18. Management by Participation Since employees are greatly influenced by decisions that are made and objectives that are established, it is important for them to be able to provide input into the methods utilised to reach these decisions. Employees should be encouraged to make recommendations which might lead to an improvement in the delivery of police services and assist in the furtherance of the Department meeting its objective. 79. Territorial Imperative Police work is one of the most personal of all personal services. It deals with human beings in life-and-death situations. The police officers and the people they serve must be as close as possible, and where possible must know one another. Such closeness can generate the police-citizen cooperation necessary for the involvement of the whole community in community protection. Organization of assignments should ensure that the police and the same citizens have an opportunity to continuously work for the protection of a specific community. Strength through interacting together and working together on common problems can be enhanced through officers and the people feeling at home with one another in an atmosphere of mutual cooperation. This may be described as a utilization of the Territorial Imperative.'
118 The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003)

20, Openness and Honesty For police-public cooperation, there must be respect of the police by the public. This is best ensured by optimum openness of the Department in its operations. A general feeling and reality of openness must pervade the police organization. Above all, the police officer must be consistently open, honest, and trustful in all matters. A combination of honesty and openness will effectively develop respect in the community for the police and make it possible for citizens to come to them with problems and information. Where this trust does not exist because of a lack of honesty or openness, the channels of communication between the police and the public are clogged and the police must desperately struggle on alone. Notes (All websites cited in this article were last accessed 17/12/2002.) 1. Samuel Walker, Popular Justice, A History of American Criminal Justice 2nd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) 53. 2. Craig D. Uchida, The Development of American Police. An Historical Overview' in R. Dunham and G. Alpert, Critical Issues in Policing, Contemporary Readings, 3rd edn (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc., 1997), 22. 3. Uchida, 21-2. 4. ibid. 5. ibid. 6. ibid. 7. Walker, 53. 8. ibid., 54. 9. Wilbur R. Miller, "Cops and Bobbies, 1830-1870\ in C. Klockars and S. Mastrofski, Thinking About Police, Contemporaty Readings (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991), 75. 10. ibid., 75. 11. Walker, 53. 12. ibid., 52. 13. Miller, 75. 14. Charles Swanson, et al,. Police Administration: Structures, Processes and Behavior (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999), 2. 15. Another example of how tied the police were to the political machine; in comparison, London police were not even allowed to vote until 1885! 16. Walker, 59. 17. Miller, 76. 18. ibid., 73. 19. Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Signet Classic, 2001), 268. 20. Walker, 64. 21. Dictionary.com The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

22. Egon Bittner, Aspects of Police Work (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, (1990), 260. 23. Lawrence M. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 69. 24. ibid., 70. 25. Walker, 232. 26. Miller, 81. 27. ibid., 82. 28. Larry K. Gaines, et ai. Policing in America (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 1997), 5-6. 29. ibid., 5-6. 30. ibid., 59. 31. Swanson, 15-16. 32. www.lapdonHne.org

120

The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003)