This approach to policing was abolished in the early nineteenth century, giving way to a more formal arrangement whereby "watchmen" were hired to keep an eye on their town or village through the night. Often old and feeble, frequently drunk, and not above taking bribes or extorting their fellow citizens, the watchmen were authorized and obligated to arrest any stranger to pass through town during hours of darkness (absent evidence of a crime, the hapless stranger was released when the sun came up). In the quieter areas of town, the most glamorous and exciting part of the job was to call out the hour ignite the gas lamps at night and snuff them out in the morning.
In America, prior to the Industrial Revolution, public order was maintained through the use of night watches. The northern colonists, for example, typically established local ordinances that required able-bodied men to take a turn on night patrol. Larger towns often raised money to pay for a constable or two whose job was to keep an eye out, maintain order on the streets and put out fires. The southern colonies, on the other hand, embraced slave patrols, the first "modern" police organization in America. Larger than the watches of the North, the slave patrols maintained the economic order of the southern colonies by controlling slaves, capturing fugitives and administering punishment.
Rural areas embraced the sheriff concept, borrowed from the British. Sheriffs were largely tax collectors and writ servers. Law enforcement on the western frontier was very much a hit-and-miss proposition, with vigilantes holding sway in the earliest days. In times, settlers from the northern colonies generally opted for appointment of a marshal with watchers, whereas settlers from the South favored election of a sheriff and a posse system."
"After years of cagey, intense political maneuvering, [Sir Robert] Peel persuaded a wary Parliament to consider a policing act. Why the reluctance? As noted, the lawmakers feared that an organized police force would inevitably lead to corruption, tyranny and militarization with police officers treating the populace as enemy combatants. But Peel, promising assurances of scrupulous accountability, prevailed. And Parliament passed the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829.
Of course, not every supporter of the act was driven by the same public-spirited motives of crime prevention and the greater civic good. The wealthy, propertied class exerted substantial pressure on the Parliament too. How else but through organized policing could its special interests be protected and served? Some things never change."
"In transplanting the British system to American soil, the emissaries ignored many of the safeguards that Peel had assiduously labored to include in this act. From the time the NYPD was formed, ward bosses, commissioners and chiefs presided over a political spoils system in which cops ought beats and the upwardly mobile purchased promotions. Hiring standards were nonexistent; supervision and discipline, hit and miss. It helped, of course, if your father, grandfather, brother, uncle or cousin worked for the City. The same or similar systemic deficiencies spread like a contagion to other American cities as they too adopted haphazardly version of the British model."
Peel's Nine Principles in policing
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 on the 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 proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the 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 are 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 usurp 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.
"As we can see, corruption and misconduct have been an integral part of the structure and culture of American policing from the very beginning. Although some agencies have shown halting progress, the institution itself has failed to make necessary, lasting changes. And the American people, particularly young people, poor people and people of color, those most in need of fair, equitable and caring police work--are making their discontent known."
Norman Stamper.
MY COMMENTARY
Relating back to Chapter 1, I reference again the phenomenal leadership of Ruth Beltran, an organizer for Black Lives Matter Tampa. Beltran spoke at a meeting of Showing Up for Racial Justice and in her discussion of the police, she stated the police exist today to serve the ruling class. By looking at the origins of the institution, as described by Stamper's historical account, Beltran is not off the mark in the least. See "The wealthy, propertied class exerted substantial pressure on the Parliament too. ".
Because the institution of American policing is an evolution of slave patrols of a not-so-distant past, it isn't possible for the institution to serve more than the interests of an elite, ruling class and maintain a racial caste system. As I stated in my commentary from the first chapter, the institution must be absolved completely and re-created from the ground up.
Had Peel's nine principles actually been applied to the institutions then perhaps we would have, at least in theory, a much more effective and just policing system. Of the nine principles, I believe each would hold enormous merit to an effective police system. However, principle number 7, which eludes to the fact that the police are the public and the public are the police is one of the most important aspects. This is an aspect that is severely missing from our culture of policing, where police view themselves as superior to the public, rather than as servants to and a part of society at large.
However, it is the final principle that stands out the most to me. As Chapter 1 told us, policing is about the numbers game, whether that be arrests, field investigations or citations. Principle nine clearly states that policing effectiveness should be measured by the absence of crime rather than the visible evidence of police action. Had this principle been embedded in our policing system from the beginning, we'd likely see a completely different culture and system.
The chapter began by discussing early versions of community control, which was through the form of watchmen. While I don't believe such a system could exist in a large society, nor do I believe it would be absent of extortion, racism, sexism and myriad of other problems, there is still a way to work toward community policing.
Campaign Zero offers several solutions that are relevant to at least working toward instilling these principles.
Community Representation
- Increase the number of police officers who represent the communities they serve. [Peel Principle: 7]
- Use community feedback to inform police policies and practices. [Peel Principle: 2]
- Establish effective oversight structures. [Peel Principle: 5, 7, 8]
- Remove barriers of reporting police misconduct. [Peel Principle: 5]
I think it is important that all actions relating to policing are followed up with a community oversight panel, that is chosen and directed (and accountable) to the public. The ability to file complaints in policing should be simplified and direct. The civilian review board should have all subpoena powers and final ruling in police actions, from hiring, promotions, demotions and termination.
