Introduction

In one of my books (Criminal Justice in America: A Critical View) policing is defined as “the use of state power by delegated authorities for the purposes of law enforcement and the maintenance of order.” This definition raises two primary questions: what is law enforcement? and what is maintenance of order?  In the most simplistic terms, law enforcement is the enforcement of enacted laws derived through a democratic process designed to accommodate the majority of the people.  Maintenance of order is simply maintaining the status quo by keeping “problem components” of the population under control.  The status quo can be defined as those in whose interest it is to keep social, economic, and political arrangements at their current status or level.  These components include ethnic/racial minorities, homeless people, young people, or those who simply seem to be Aout of place@ or those who resist the status quo.  Historically, problem components have included civil rights advocates (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr.), labor leaders (e.g., Eugene Debs, a labor movement activist during the early 20^th century), antiwar protesters, university students, workers on strike, and many others who have dared to question or contest the status quo.  Many have been jailed, beaten, killed by police and other social control agents of the state (e.g., Ohio National Guard, who opened fire on students at Kent State University in 1970, killing four) as they attempted to exercise their Constitutional rights as American citizens. 

The hallmark of American policing is reflected in synthesis of two concepts, law and order, which implies the maintenance of order within the framework of law.  The concept of law and order has contributed to media sound-bites and infotainment which promote the legitimation of policing policies through slogans like “You are in danger and you need protection.”  These sound-bites are often adopted by politicians who weave law and order into slogans that legitimate their own political agendas (claiming, for instance, that more police will result in more protection, contrary to research).  This sound-bite strategy is useful in the artificial creation of people=s needs as well as proposed solutions to those needs, and this scheme has been successful for businesses and corporations who sell products through advertisements provided by mass media conglomerates (i.e., major radio and television networks and/or magazine and newspaper companies, etc.).

The media=s preoccupation with profit promotes concern about ratings and the revenue generated through the sale of commercial spots on television, the radio, and in newspapers and magazines.  They constantly package and sell myths of crime to the public.  Often, these myths are “packaged” as entertainment which provides “excitement” for the targeted audience, the American “consumer.”  By and large, the public has been willing to purchase these mythical products.  Politicians have been successful in their sales of crime-fighting methods which, under close scrutiny, are social and fiscal failures.  The constant message is that more and more police is the answer to our fear of crime.  Yet, as many suggest, crime is largely nothing more than a symptom of larger social problems that have been carefully compacted into the conceptual illusion called crime. Crime has become a political product, carefully crafted, marketed, and sold by the media (consisting of a small number of corporate conglomerates).   The media and the political figures have, through the successful sales of their “products,” managed to create a public addiction for stronger social control measures, and one which is apathetic over issues related to individual rights. In many instances, this addiction has resulted in a reduction of individual liberties for all.  In essence, police have become commodity products used to promote the sale of the mythical notion that more police necessarily results in less crime.

American policing is vital to the operation of the criminal justice system.  It would not be too far-fetched to suggest that the police are to criminal justice what procurers of raw materials (e.g., steel and plastic) are to the automobile industry.  Corporations cannot sustain an industry without raw materials, and the criminal justice system cannot operate its industry without criminal defendants. Thus, from this perspective, prosecutors, judges, and wardens need police to procure “warm bodies” for their respective criminal processing roles within the criminal justice system.  Today, in pursuit of these “warm bodies” necessary for criminal justice processing, American policing faces a dilemma.  Confronted with two conflicting roles, American policing must decide upon an image to offer to the public.  As agents of the state, the police must perform their principle role as social control agents.  To a large degree, this role is accommodated through widespread visible police presence.  This presence is often amplified by a vast assortment of paramilitary gear worn by police officers who often project the image of combat soldiers or occupation forces ready for a major foreign enemy attack.  In a sense, this is true, since we have declared a Awar on crime,@ Awar on drugs@ and Awar on gangs@ and therefore are fighting many Aenemies.@  Thus it is not too surprising to find a great deal of Acollateral damage@ - to borrow a war phrase - such as innocent people being locked up or even killed. 

History (including recent history reflected in the Rampart investigations in Los Angeles, California) has demonstrated that police, concurrent with their visible public presence, are often willing to break laws in the name of winning their war against crime.  As the Rampart investigation has disclosed, the police seem willing to even make up crimes to win the war against crime.  Furthermore, as social control agents, police are authorized to intervene, without invitation, in disputes between citizens.  They can also deprive citizens of their freedom through the processes of detainment or arrest (as vividly shown in the story that began this chapter).  And, committing a crime is certainly not a prerequisite for anyone to experience intervention, detainment or arrest.  In fact, the whole idea for police to intervene in disputes has become part of American culture.  If someone is playing a stereo too loud, people call the police rather than go and ask the person to turn the volume down.  The state-defined role of policing is simply Aagents charged with the task of enforcing the laws of the state.@  As noted in a previous chapter, laws are not necessarily laws of the people; rather they are often rules which protect a Aprivileged@ class in American society.   The higher one is located on the social ladder the more likely laws will insure their security.

Police, through their widespread and visible contact with citizens, must be creative and they must attempt to present a positive image of the institution of police and also of the state.  People, as a general rule, tend to respond more favorably to that which is presented as legitimate and in their interest.  In addition to long-range public relations campaigns, the police institution is able to control the flow of information about crime and its performance as a social control apparatus.  Allowing police to keep track of crime, and their responses to that social problem, is problematic.  As demonstrated in places like Philadelphia, and Boca Raton, police often under-report crime to make communities Aappear@ safeBoften for the benefit of the tourist and recreation industries.  Moreover, the police argue that they are entitled to receive credit for this illusion of safety.  Their preoccupation with credit-entitlement is linked to funding.  Other jurisdictions engage in what we call arrest-overkill, which is the arrest of many suspects for an individual crime. 

The mass media consist of profit-oriented enterprises of information delivery in American society.  This enterprise has done much to enhance the image of police in ways that are entertaining to an audience that is neither familiar with, nor willing to engage in, the rigors of critical inquiry and, as a result, many allow themselves to be quite susceptible to the seductive qualities of this form of Ainfotainment@ (e.g., an almost endless display of mindless programs like ACops,@ AAmerica=s Most Wanted,@ and tapes of wild police chases, and new programs starting in the fall of 2004).  Typically, the projected image that mass media presents of the institution of police is that law enforcement is here to serve and protect the public (and they always Aget their man@).   The mainstream presentation of police is that of the crime-fighter.  People often view the police as crime-fighters, but maintaining order has always been the primary goal of the police institution.

The state is typically portrayed as a just entity, although imperfect, and that it can and must be trusted.  The police often define themselves as the Athin blue line@ between Acivilization@ and Aanarchy.@  Of course, the much popularized video recording of the Rodney King beating by police in Los Angeles begs for a more detailed definition of what police actually mean when they refer to the concept Acivilization.@ 

These are some of the issues explored in the following essays.