The past few years the issue of police brutality and the relationship between the police and the communities they are meant to serve have become a major issue here in the United States. This issue has been raised by a series of escalating events in which many unarmed African American men and women have been killed by police with apparently very little cause. One of the most shocking cases and the one that has created the most conversation occurred in Ferguson, Missouri and it surrounded the death and subsequent protests of teenager Michael Brown. The events in Ferguson nearly two years ago brought up many questions about the nature of policing and the treatment of African American residents by the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) specifically and all police forces more generally. One of the primary problems with the relationship between police and the public has been connected to the increase of the militarization of police tactics, equipment and posture. The militarization of police has been a major contributing force to the eroding of trust between the police and the community and the best method to deal with this problem is by curbing the militarization of police and by emphasizing a more inclusive community policing initiatives. These measures should be able to deal with the problems caused by the perception that police are an outside occupying force in many communities.
It is important to define what is meant by the militarization of police in order to continue with a cogent and logical explanation for how it could be reduced in American policing. Peter Kraska and Louis Cubellis define the militarization of police by calling them police paramilitary units or PPUs and distinguishes them from regular, traditional beat cops. Kraska and Cubellis give three primary characteristics which distinguish PPUs from regular police forces. First, these units “must train and function as a military special operations team with a strict military command structure and discipline.” (Kraska and Cubellis 610) Second, these units have the use of force as a primary function and not always as a last resort. Finally, these units “must operate under legitimate state authority” which is to say, that they are sanctioned by the state and are overseen by some government agency. (Kraska and Cubellis 610) These identifying features as well as the uniform, equipment and a range of lethal and non-lethal weaponry separate military style police from traditional police. One of the primary reasons why police has transformed into a much more military endeavor is tied into an intensified use of military rhetoric when dealing with the problem of crime.
The use of military language as a way of describing major social or criminal problems is somewhat of a legacy of post-World War II American politics. Throughout the Cold War and after, American politicians have used “martial crime control rhetoric” as a way of describing how to deal with various problems from Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” to the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Violence.” (Kraska 18-19) This language has normalized the use of military rhetoric regarding crime and the use of this kind of language has real consequences in creating a powerful new form of crime fighting. This approach has created a problem in normalizing military language and military force as a legitimate method of dealing with crime and that is a problem that must be dealt with.
One such way in which the militarization of police can be deal with is by attempting to cut the necessary funds which police departments and other agencies need to secure their paramilitary equipment. The militarization of police forces has created an entirely new look citizen soldier outfitted in a uniform and carrying equipment which is more appropriate for dealing with insurgents in Fallujah rather than criminals in our cities. This equipment doesn’t come cheap and the federal government has played a large role in supplying police departments with this equipment. One way to deal with this problem is to just cut off this stream of federal money which is used to purchase lethal weapons, non-lethal weapons and military style vehicles such as MRAPs by police agencies. The oppositional nature of the relationship between police and the community they are meant to be serving is exacerbated by the use of this equipment. Military equipment is only issue and perhaps not even the most significant one. The use of militaristic tactics is perhaps even more significant and this could be remedied by the use of community policing techniques.
One of the most prevalent tactics used to deal with the problem of crime in America’s cities has been community policing. While it is hard to define community policing is basically can be summed up as “policing which is determined by strategies, tactics and outcomes based on community consent.” (Brogden and Nijhar 2) This is the opposite of military-style policing and it should be able to deal with the problems created by the use of militarized police tactics. In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting and the associated unrest the US Department of Justice recommended that FPD should implement a system of community policing. They suggested this be done by conducting outreach, problem-solving, increasing positive contact between police and the community, assigning police to certain areas. (Matthews 90) These recommendations specific to FPD could easily be transported to other jurisdictions and are a very simple way of increasing contact between the population and the police on positive terms.
The use of military style tactics, language, approach and equipment by military forces has a markedly deleterious effect on the relationship between the police and the population they are meant to be serving and protecting. The militarization of police leads many to believe that the police are very little more than an occupying force who are there to deal with a recalcitrant minority group. These issues can easily be dealt with by doing two things. First, make it harder for police department and other agencies to actually acquire the equipment they need to become a paramilitary apparatus. Second, implement community policing techniques as a way of increasing the rapport between the police and the population and creating a much more amenable environment for police to operate in. These two ideas should work to minimize conflict between police and the public and create mutual trust and to de-escalate the posture of police as an occupying force in America’s inner cities.
Works Cited
Brogden, Mike, and Preeti Nijhar. Community policing. Routledge, 2013.
Kraska, Peter B. Militarizing the American Criminal Justice System: The Changing Roles of the Armed Forces and the Police. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press, 2001. Print.
Kraska, Peter B., and Louis J. Cubellis. "Militarizing Mayberry and beyond: Making sense of American paramilitary policing." Justice quarterly 14.4 (1997): 607-629.
Matthews, Katherine. "Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, by the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division." Kalfou 3.1 (2016).
