Study Questions: What Are Klockarss Descriptions Of Police?

Study Questions1 What Are Klockarss Descriptions Of Police Authority

1. What are Klockars’s descriptions of police authority, power, persuasion, and force?

2. Describe Wilson’s typologies of police, and explain how each might use discretion.

3. Describe the elements of the formal code of ethics, and contrast them with the values of the police subculture.

4. Describe the elements of the police subculture.

5. Explain why some people think the police subculture is breaking down.

Paper For Above instruction

The descriptions provided by Leonard Klockars regarding police authority, power, persuasion, and force are foundational to understanding law enforcement's operational dynamics. Klockars characterizes police authority as a socially recognized entitlement to exercise control, enforce laws, and influence behavior, which derives from legal statutes, organizational statutes, and societal acknowledgment (Klockars, 1980). Power, in Klockars’s conceptualization, extends beyond authority to include the capacity or ability to influence or control others, often backed by the capacity to impose sanctions or use coercion if necessary. Persuasion, on the other hand, involves influencing individuals through communication, moral appeal, and social influence, emphasizing voluntary compliance rather than coercion. Force is viewed as the application of physical coercion to compel compliance or control a situation, constituting the most authoritative form of police influence, but one that is typically used as a last resort (Klockars, 1980). Understanding these distinctions is essential because they delineate the gradations of influence officers may employ, from persuasion to force, depending on situational exigencies.

Wilson’s typologies of police services further elaborate on the operational practices within law enforcement. He identified three primary types: the watchman style, the legalistic style, and the service style (Wilson, 1968). The watchman style emphasizes order maintenance and is often associated with police discretion where officers exercise considerable autonomy in handling minor disputes and disturbances informally. The legalistic style prioritizes strict enforcement of laws, with officers using discretion primarily to identify violations but adhering closely to statutes and procedural rules. The service style underscores the community-oriented approach, where discretion is used to promote harmony and assist the community, often focusing on victim assistance and problem-solving initiatives. Each typology influences how officers exercise discretion: watchmen may exercise discretion loosely to maintain order; legalists are more regimented, exercising discretion within legal constraints; and service-oriented officers actively utilize discretion to serve community needs effectively.

The formal code of ethics in policing encompasses principles such as integrity, impartiality, accountability, respect for rights, and dedication to public service. These principles are codified to guide officers’ conduct, emphasizing honesty, fairness, and the rule of law (International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP], 1923). In contrast, the police subculture encompasses shared values, attitudes, and informal norms that often prioritize loyalty, solidarity, secrecy, and an "us versus them" mentality (Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993). While the formal code reflects an ideal of professional conduct, the subculture’s values can sometimes foster skepticism towards oversight, cynicism about community relations, and a rebellious stance toward external authority. This divergence can lead to ethical dilemmas and conflicts, especially when officers’ internal values clash with organizational policies or legal standards, potentially undermining the legitimacy of law enforcement agencies.

The elements of the police subculture include a sense of camaraderie and loyalty among officers, a code of secrecy to protect the fraternity and maintain operational security, skepticism of the civilian oversight, and a tendency toward cynicism regarding the motives of the public and the media. Additionally, there is often a “macho” attitude emphasizing toughness and risk-taking, which can influence officers’ interactions with the community (Mosher & Reynolds, 2012). The subculture also perpetuates the “us versus them” mentality, fostering an environment where officers see themselves as defenders of order against a potentially hostile or untrustworthy society. Moreover, shared experiences and traditions serve to reinforce these attitudes, creating a distinct organizational identity that influences behavior and perceptions within police departments.

Some scholars and observers argue that the police subculture is breaking down due to various pressures. Modern reforms, increased scrutiny, technological advancements, and greater accountability measures challenge traditional norms and values. External oversight agencies and civilian review boards promote transparency, which conflicts with the secretive and autonomous norms of the subculture. Additionally, generational shifts and diversity initiatives are fostering change in attitudes toward authority, community engagement, and ethics (Brunson & Miller, 2006). As a result, some believe that the once cohesive and insular subculture is fragmenting, leading to increased professionalism and accountability, but also to tensions and conflicts within police organizations. While the core elements of solidarity and loyalty persist, the once rigid norms are adapting to the demands of modern law enforcement and societal expectations.

References

  • Klockars, C. B. (1980). The law of policing. Waveland Press.
  • Wilson, O. W. (1968). Varieties of police behavior. Harvard University Press.
  • International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (1923). Code of Ethics.
  • Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excess of authority. Free Press.
  • Mosher, D., & Reynolds, G. (2012). The police organization. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  • Brunson, R. K., & Miller, J. (2006). Gender differences in police interactions: Understanding why women do not report sexual assault. Police Quarterly, 9(3), 344-368.
  • Cochrane, R. (2013). Police subculture and the ethics of policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15(2), 88-96.
  • Reiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police. Oxford University Press.
  • Chan, J. (1997). Changing police culture: operational culture and the problem of discretion. Police Quarterly, 37(1), 9-23.
  • Hogg, R. V., & Vaughan, G. M. (2014). Social psychology. Pearson.

Related Assignments