1

Introduction

The romance of police activity keeps in some sense before the mind the fact that civilization itself is the most sensational of departures and the most romantic of rebellions. By dealing with the unsleeping sentinels who guard the outposts of society, it tends to remind us that we live in an armed camp, making war with a chaotic world, and that the criminals, the children of chaos, are nothing but the traitors within our gates. . . . The romance of the police force is thus the whole romance of man. It is based on the fact that morality is the most dark and daring of conspiracies. It reminds us that the whole noiseless and unnoticeable police management by which we are ruled and protected is only a successful knight-errantry.

—G. K. Chesterton¹

Chesterton’s description of police activity as romance will strike some people responsible for enforcing the law and keeping the peace as naïve, or at least incomplete. Police work involves boredom, suffering, anxiety, danger, and disappointment as much as romance, challenge, satisfaction, and success.

Still, despite much literature that describes police as cynical, alienated, disaffected, and unhappy, my own experience with police of all ranks indicates that many love their work and find great fulfillment in it. They understand, with Chesterton, that civilization does not come into existence or survive by accident, and they take seriously their place in sustaining it.

Civilization depends on people who are committed to civility and decency. Not everyone is. People have a mixture of motives; some are high-minded, and some are not. Even the best among us have weaknesses. Some of us are downright dangerous—to ourselves, to other people, or to both.

Human beings are neither angels nor beasts, and they differ in attitudes, beliefs, motives, purposes, and ambitions. This makes civilization difficult to create and preserve. For the same reason, there must be unsleeping sentinels who guard the outposts of society. Simply put, civilization cannot defend itself: people must stand up for it. The specific people who are on the front lines—the police—are thus essential to civilized life, even though there are limits to what they can do.

In the end, of course, the citizens must do much for themselves in their own daily behavior and in educating the young. No police force can safeguard the ideals of civility and decency from a public determined to destroy them or lacking the courage to stand up for them. But even when many citizens are basically respectful of each other and of the law, there is never enough decency, never enough restraint, to enable people to live well together without someone who can step in when civility breaks down. So some of us must be entrusted to guard the public safety, to enforce the laws, to keep the peace, and to help the helpless.

The age-old dream of living together free from tyranny is the most daring romance of mankind. We want to be free and at the same time to enjoy security. This is the context in which morality in law enforcement takes shape. We want police and law enforcement institutions that merit our trust, respect, and confidence.

Within this context, I have tried to address the kinds of moral questions most often raised by police and others in the criminal justice system with whom I have worked over the past twenty-five years. The chapters are self-contained, but common threads of argument run throughout. I have also tried where appropriate to explain how to think conscientiously about moral questions and public policy issues.

I have addressed the following broad questions: What is excellence of character? Particularly, what are wisdom and integrity, and how are they related to specific aspects of character, such as justice, courage, temperance, and compassion? How does personal virtue figure in the fulfillment of the mission of police? How should problems of infidelity to the public trust— whether in corruption or in abuse of authority, power, and discretion—be addressed? What basic principles of morality apply to police acceptance of gratuities, to uses of deception and force, to treatment of informants, to selective enforcement of the law, to drug testing, and to preparation of reports and testimony? What are just and wise policies for recruitment, selection, reward, and promotion of personnel? How are police to analyze the moral dimensions of public policy debates, such as those concerning the legalization of narcotics? How can police education and training most effectively promote respect for moral ideals? What should decent people do about hard cases where moral ideals seem to be, or actually are, in unresolvable conflict? How can people draw out the best in themselves when suffering heartache and discouragement?

Chapter 2 describes personal character and shows how morality concerns good character and right action. It emphasizes connections between wisdom and integrity in public and private life. Chapter 3 describes the ideals of a constitutional republic and the mission of police in such a republic. Chapter 4 expands on the nature of the police mission by explaining the idea of public trust and describing the kinds of people who are qualified to serve the public. Chapter 5 focuses on the nature, place, and limits of discretion in policing. Chapter 6 discusses corruption, hypotheses about its causes, and the power of individuals to resist it. The chapter distinguishes legitimate higher standards from illegitimate double standards. Chapter 7 treats effective uses of authority for reform. Chapter 8 addresses departmental leadership, personnel policies, burnout, and affirmative action. It concludes with recommendations for sound recruiting, selection, and advancement. Chapter 9 describes and analyzes the moral dimensions of public policy debates, focusing on the specific debate about legalization of narcotics. It denies that legalization can solve our problems, and it concludes that morally overriding reasons do not exist for legalization.

Chapters 10 through 12 are devoted explicitly to police training in relation to good character and good judgment. The chapters proceed from fundamentals of ethics through progressively more subtle deliberation about moral questions to the problems of tragedy and noble cause corruption. They emphasize the formation of habits of virtue, including the habit of reasoning well about issues that call for deliberation, and thus highlight the need for command personnel, academy instructors, and field training officers who can bridge the gap between moral ideals and the realities of the streets. Chapter 13 is a reflection on the place of wisdom and character in facing the death of a friend, partner, or loved one; the bereavement of others; and the aftermath of deadly force. Chapter 14 describes the morality of aspiration by which we take our lives seriously.

Chapter 15 addresses the dangerous, and false, assertion that police departments are mere microcosms of society. That mistake has undermined proper recruitment and education of police and impaired high standards in policing. Chapter 16 treats juvenile crime, gang recruitment, and gang predation as serious threats to public safety requiring the combined efforts of police and criminal justice officials; civic and youth organizations; the media, corporations, and foundations; parents and personnel from religious, medical, and educational institutions. Using the O. J. Simpson trial as an example, chapter 17 explains why police departments are obligated to refuse to assent to the reduction of individuals to mere members of groups—including racial or ethnic groups. Chapter 18 explains how public service and individual conscience are intertwined and describes the responsibilities of police leaders to their subordinates when questions of conscience or religious belief arise. Chapter 19 shows how a steady decline in individual willingness to exercise peer pressure on the side of morals, manners, and reputable conduct has led to a coarsening of modern life. To meet the complex duties of policing in the twenty-first century, police departments must teach their personnel the differences, for example, between legitimate and illegitimate profiling and establish unambiguous policies for action. Chapter 20 addresses obligations of police and law enforcement personnel that arise from the threat—and the execution—of terrorist atrocities and acts of war against civilian populations. Chapter 21 describes ethics in action—professional excellence in the investigation of mass murder at Columbine High School, the reform of policing in the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, gang intelligence and enforcement in the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department, and the work on public safety and individual privacy in the New York State Office of Homeland Security.

Honorable and conscientious police work is performed every day by countless command and patrol personnel throughout America. I have witnessed their work time and again: I have seen police apply patience and good judgment to prevent violent conflict; and I have seen them endure racial and ethnic abuse with equanimity rather than add to tension.

I have worked with departments where officers routinely inform citizens who try to bribe them, We don’t do that here. I have seen officers expose themselves to danger to protect the innocent and seen them suffer harm from sudden violence by the very people they were protecting; I have seen police sprayed with the vomit of homeless drunks rather than let them fall to the pavement. I have observed their efforts to help youths recover their lives from addiction and futility; I have seen police work the streets seeking information to identify and apprehend suspects in violent crimes; I have observed their respect for civil rights even in extended undercover investigations of organized crime; and I have seen them make arrests without force when conflict seemed virtually inevitable.

I have seen police use force to subdue the perpetrators of crimes when no lesser means would suffice and witnessed their anguish afterward, even when there was absolutely no reason for remorse or self-criticism. I have enjoyed their humor when things seemed terribly unfair: For example, an officer who was unjustly attacked by reporters, after a harrowing chase to apprehend a suspect, remarked to me, Man, what a job we could have done if we had known as much as those reporters. I have been touched by police efforts to bring comfort and assurance to old, mentally frail people who were terrorized by their own imaginations.

I have likewise met sly, greedy, cowardly, mean, unreliable, and brutish police. I have witnessed the effects of individual, rogue corruption and violence and of institutionalized corruption and brutality. I have seen people recruited who were never fit to be police in the first place and learned of their subsequent betrayal of the badge. And I have listened to their excuses and rationalizations for failings, sometimes accompanied by excuses from their peers, departments, and political officials.

I have also learned of the work of honorable judges, legislators, prosecuting attorneys, and defense lawyers and seen the good effects of their probity on the criminal justice system. And I have been taught the scams of corrupt attorneys and judges and their impact on police—as well as the effects of legislative corruption, incompetence, cowardice, and greed.

Accordingly, I have written this book in awareness that policing, like all other walks of life, includes people who are worthy of their authority and responsibilities and people who are not. It is my hope that the book will be of use to police and others in the broad domains of law and politics who seek to bear faithfully the public trust.

2

Excellence of Character

It is a matter of real importance whether our early education confirms in us one set of habits or another. It would be nearer the truth to say that it makes a very great difference indeed, in fact all the difference in the world.

—Aristotle¹

No one who does not already care about being a good person and doing what is right can have a serious ethical question. A person must have achieved a disposition to do the right thing in the right way at the right time for the right reasons before any moral perplexities can arise.

First and Second Nature

No one is born with formed character. Whatever the injustices of the human condition, everyone, regardless of background, race, or sex, enters the world with a full portion of ignorance; and all of us die with much of that ignorance intact.

As infants, we are curious and responsive. Our behavior as babies— such as crying when another baby cries—suggests that the roots of sympathy and social awareness run very deep in us.

At the same time, as infants we are often bent on the immediate gratification of every desire, indifferent to the extent of our demands on others. We have yet to develop a sense of self; our character remains to be formed. We are impulsive. This is what some thinkers call our first nature as human beings.

Babies are born with neither good nor bad character. Normal people, as they grow, learn, and are trained, develop better or worse dispositions and habits of conduct. They come to have a second nature.

Obviously, we are born with a potential for good character—and for the dispositions and habits that make up bad or weak character. Because we are born in ignorance of moral ideals, however, we must be instructed and trained if we are to achieve a good second nature. As philosopher J. O. Urmson expressed it, If we are normal human beings and not incapacitated by some abnormal defect, then whether we acquire a good or bad character depends on the kind of upbringing we get.²

Aristotle observed that habit is a second nature and quoted the Greek poet Evenus: I say that habit’s but long practice, friend, And this becomes men’s nature in the end.³ Everyone develops a second nature—whatever becomes natural to do and feel in recurrent situations. The fulfillment of our potential for character excellence depends on the habits our early education confirms in us.

Environment, however, is not sufficient to give a person good character. The habits of feeling, action, and judgment that constitute good character depend on personal self-discipline and powerful aspiration to become a good person, all of which must finally be drawn from within.

Still, children exposed primarily to bad examples seldom acquire good character. They tend to develop habits of self-indulgence and disregard for others, and they often become dangerous.

It is difficult to nurture respect for moral ideals in adults who have not learned self-discipline as children. Adult programs that focus on ethical problems are fruitless unless the students take questions of decency seriously. Without a prior disposition to decency, discussion of moral dilemmas cannot forge a second nature better than our impulsive first nature, and it is not likely to change the bad habits of our second nature.

Anyone who has played sports knows it is easier to develop good habits—hitting a baseball or cue ball—if we have not already developed bad ones. Bad habits are hard to break. Likewise, moral education, training, and habituation have the best chance when they begin early in life, preferably in a setting that emphasizes love and inspires trust. Although the family may be the best setting, an effective sense of kinship, mutual responsibility, nurture, and support can be built into whole communities, as in ancient Greece, in some Israeli kibbutzim, and in some neighborhoods, schools, and churches.

The idea that acquiring good character is comparable to acquiring a skill is not new. Aristotle observed that people’s characters take their bias from the steady directions of their activities. . . . It is these persistent activities in certain directions that make them what they are.⁴ J. O. Urmson explained:

Paradoxical though it may sound, one learns to play the piano by playing the piano, and to ride a bicycle by riding one. Before one has acquired the art or skill one acts in accordance with the instructions of a teacher, who tells us what to do, and one does it with effort. Gradually by practice and repetition it becomes effortless and second nature. In the same way, one is trained as a child (if lucky in one’s parents and teachers) to become truthful, generous, fair, and the like. . . . If properly trained one comes to enjoy doing things the right way, to want to do things the right way, and to be distressed by doing things wrongly.⁵

A wholesome upbringing does not, however, lead inevitably to character excellence. But without training and habituation in youth, change for the better is difficult. As the philosopher Immanuel Kant observed, If a man be allowed to follow his own will in his youth, without opposition, a certain lawlessness will cling to him throughout his life.⁶

Learning—and living up to—high standards is not easy, any more than learning to play the piano is easy. Philosopher John Stuart Mill criticized teaching the young only what can be made pleasurable. When the young are not required to learn anything but what has been made easy and interesting, one of the chief objects of education is sacrificed. That system of teaching, he added, was training up a race of men who will be incapable of doing anything which is disagreeable to them.⁷ Learning in youth to control our impulses often is disagreeable, but character education does not otherwise succeed.

Character can be reformed later in life. Even mature adults do change habits of alcohol and food consumption, for example. Still, one suspects that they must have achieved some self-control beforehand.

The indispensability of moral habituation to moral excellence as second nature is disclosed in the very idea of character. Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre wrote that a person’s character is his set of dispositions to behave systematically in one way rather than another, to lead one particular kind of life.⁸ Character excellence, Urmson added, is the set disposition to do what reason determines is the best course of action⁹ rather than to allow unconsidered desires and feelings to hold sway. It is made up of habits of feeling and acting in the right way, at the right time, toward the right people—and for the right reasons. Thus, the person of good character will not be inordinately angry about someone’s cutting him off in a traffic jam but will be infuriated by the sale of illicit drugs to children.

Such habits are acquired by initiation and instruction from others—in the telling of stories; the explanation of decent behavior; the introduction to heroes, heroines, and villains; the exposure to the meaning of fundamental ideals; and the discussion of questions.

This is true not only for children but also for adults and thus for police. Listening and talking—and frequently reading and writing—can be basic instruments of moral and intellectual maturation. Political scientist William Ker Muir Jr. observed in Police: Streetcorner Politicians that grasping the nature of human suffering and achieving moral strength depends in part on developing an enjoyment of talk.¹⁰ This enjoyment draws us into closer association and gives us a chance to learn from each other—and to discern how to meet the moral demands of our work better than we can in isolation. Great teachers throughout history have emphasized the place of dialogue in education. Socrates told his fellow citizens that discussing excellence every day is the most beneficial of all activities.

Habits of virtue are acquired by observation and imitation of others, by rejection of behavior that falls short, and above all by practice over time at behaving well.

Character and Police

Obviously, all police and law enforcement agencies want to recruit candidates of good character and to encourage the best in them, but how should good character be understood?

The Bad Character. Imagine an officer who comes upon an undetected burglary and can steal goods and blame the burglar, even if the burglar later denies stealing those goods. A person of bad character will seek opportunities to profit by victimizing others. Other people exist for him only to be used for his own advantage. Whatever he may have been taught about right and wrong has nothing to do with the conduct of his life. He feels no shame in abusing his authority. The so-called meat-eaters are dangerous to life and property, they are often shrewd, and they are invariably rapacious and without conscience. Such persons must simply be weeded out by background investigations, by observant academy instructors, by careful field training officers, and so on.

In 1980, Miami, Florida, adopted a policy requiring that two hundred new police be recruited immediately, with 80 percent to be minority residents of Miami. Many of the recruits were utterly unsuited to be police, as background investigations and the warnings of academy instructors confirmed at the time. Sloppy field training, inadequate supervision, and an ineffective Internal Affairs Division permitted them to behave with contempt for the law. By 1988, more than a third of them had been fired. Twelve members of a group known as the River Cops had been convicted of crimes ranging from drug trafficking to murder. Many of these recruits became police to profit from illegal activity with drugs.¹¹

The Uncontrolled. A person who is uncontrolled in some aspects of his character may behave like a person of bad character, if his passion for gain overrides his regard for the law. A person who is weak willed and vulnerable to childish temptations may be teachable but does not belong in a position of public trust. Such grass eaters cannot trust themselves under pressure from peers or in circumstances of illicit opportunity and may fall into progressively worse behavior. They can be reached; they have a price.

Some of the Buddy Boys of the Seventy-seventh Precinct of the New York Police Department in Brooklyn served with honor for years. When they saw drug dealers making huge profits and flouting the law, however, they began to bust drug dealers to steal their money, and they finally stole and dealt drugs themselves. Any habits of decency they had formed succumbed to the temptations of revenge against street dealers and of easy money, as they rationalized their conduct by the timeworn excuse that others do it.¹²

The Self-Controlled. Persons with greater self-discipline may report a crime, protect the remaining property, and so on, but resent the higher standard of conduct to which they are held. They may be gnawed by feelings that they could have profited and that others are getting away with illegality and enjoying more material goods. Such officers may feel a persistent tension between duty and desire and become desperately unhappy because acquisitiveness draws them even as they do what they should. A department should provide support and leadership to foster admirable behavior in the face of temptation and discouragement.

The Excellent. Finally, there are persons of excellent character, who have acquired habits of trustworthiness that have become integral to their lives. They respect and even love honesty, which has become second nature. Such persons behave in the same way as the self-controlled or self-disciplined person in that they do their duty, but they enjoy peace of mind in knowing who they are and what they stand for. Such persons can be said to be truly incorruptible, with no temptation to steal because money is only green paper. Persons of such character are fit to bear the trust of public office in law enforcement.

In different aspects of their character, individuals reveal themselves to be of more than one of the four types described above. A person may be self-controlled in matters of money, for example, but uncontrolled in drinking. And character in general may range along a continuum from those who are remorseless; to those who cannot resist temptation but are ashamed of it; to the self-controlled, who find little fulfillment and who may be influenced more by fear of detection or sanctions than by duty, regard for others, or honor; and finally to those with an excellence of character that is deeply fulfilling.¹³

Acquiring Character. The unregulated desires of youngsters for, say, cake can easily overshadow their appreciation for justice and fair play in its distribution. When two children are to share a single portion of cake, we may let one divide it and the other choose the first piece. The first child may cut the cake evenly only to avoid losing the lion’s share—motivated by advantage rather than fairness—but by such exercises the child learns respect for fair shares.

We try to give children practice in behaving fairly and in acquiring a sense for the feelings of other people. In games and sports, we witness their frustration when they cannot have their way or cannot do what they try to do, and we try to help them find more fun in winning with a fair field and no favors than in ruining the game or triumphing by cheating. We help children mature until they enjoy the fulfillment that comes of treating others fairly and find the peace of mind that accompanies a just life.

A police officer’s fitness to wear the badge depends on the acquisition of habits of just behavior. A just officer will see that providing special—even if legal—services in return for gratuities takes time and unjustly deprives other members of the public of the attention they deserve. Officers who respect justice will have nothing to do with racial prejudices, will not exceed their authority in the exercise of discretion, abuse the powers of their office, falsify reports, or give perjured testimony.

None of these considerations is more important than the use of force. William Ker Muir argues that good police officers not only understand human suffering but also resolve the tension between respect for justice and the use of coercion to achieve it.¹⁴ Respect for justice holds them back from using threats when reasoned persuasion will suffice, from force when threats will suffice, and from greater force when lesser force will suffice. Habits of restraint differ, however, from excessive caution, timidity, and irresoluteness.

There is fulfillment in acting with fairness toward others and peace of mind in knowing one has neither exceeded one’s authority nor been more coercive than a situation demanded. The use of force is never as satisfying to a person of excellent character as a resolution by persuasion and reason, and a person in whom justice has become second nature reflects this in his behavior.

We admire individuals who resist a strong temptation to strike in vengeance or to deceive for personal gain. But as in the case of honesty, our highest esteem goes to the person who is above such temptation, for whom justice has become second nature.

Another crucial aspect of character formation is associated with temperance. Intemperate people pursue pleasure inordinately—whether through sex, alcohol, food, or drugs. Because pleasure is by definition enjoyable, temperance is self-control despite the allure. Temperate persons are not indifferent to pleasure, nor do they reject recreation, relaxation, and amusements, but they choose pleasures that contribute to well-being.

Self-control is also an essential part of courage and fortitude, at least in extremis. Courageous officers facing life-threatening situations hardly take pleasure in them, but will not run away and leave a partner or an innocent bystander exposed. They find fulfillment in not allowing fear to dictate their behavior. Shakespeare’s insight—the coward dies a thousand deaths, but the brave man only one—holds.

Courage is not only physical, of course. Police officers may know that a partner is corrupt, that some of their superiors are on the pad, or that fellow officers brutalize suspects. Decent officers may fear the contempt of their colleagues if they refuse to participate or blow the whistle.

Courageous persons will not tolerate such abuses even if they have to blow the whistle covertly rather than openly. To inform on a partner one likes and may admire in other respects and as a result to be rejected and isolated by peers is not enjoyable. No one wants to be thought a rat rather than a stand-up guy, even by colleagues so corrupt that by the latter expression they mean a crooked cop.

A colleague who deserves to be a friend, however, would not compromise a partner. The betrayal of office is an affront to honesty and justice as well as to friendship. Courage here means fearing the right thing— dishonorable conduct—more than contemptible forms of peer pressure.

Balanced Perception. Two kinds of wholeness are related to excellent character. The first consists of a balanced perception of how to make the best of circumstances. On a domestic violence call, police officers must be courageous in ending the violence, just in their treatment of the combatants, temperate in their use of force, compassionate to the victims, respectful of the limits to discretion, honest, timely, and properly equipped and with sufficient backup. But they also need a sense of how all these factors are related. When they conflict, sound judgment of their relative importance is needed.

In a given case, compassion may give a victim comfort that falsely minimizes the danger of future beatings. The unvarnished truth may cause panic. Complete honesty may suggest that the more abusive party has no need to fear the law. And so on. Judgment and a sense of proportion about what the situation calls for may be called wisdom in the practical affairs of life.

Integrity. The second kind of wholeness related to good character is integrity. Excellent qualities of character must become integral, not just to certain parts of our lives, but to our entire lives, both public and private. Integrity means wholeness, being one thing through and through, much as homogenization is to milk. Persons of integrity by definition have made certain kinds of excellence integral to all of their lives.

A person of integrity is the same person in public and in private. Accordingly, integrity as an ideal flies squarely against the now popular idea that we live public lives on one plane and personal lives on another, and that these are essentially separate and subject to different principles of conduct.

Every human life is the life of a person; for this reason, all life is personal life. Personal life has both public and private dimensions, but these dimensions are parts of a single person. Don L. Kooken, who served as captain of the Indiana State Police and chairman of the Department of Police Administration at Indiana University, stressed this point: Habits that are formed in the home and among working associates are reflected in a policeman’s relations with the public. . . . One cannot be a gentleman in public and a cad in private.¹⁵

But integrity is not achieved just by being any one thing through and through. A person can, after all, be a cad both in public and private. In urban ghettos and elsewhere there are sociopaths, drug dealers, crack addicts, and terrorists who are one thing through and through, the same in public and private, but who are not people of integrity.

Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard observed that purity of heart is to will one thing. Though this is true in important ways, we would not say that a crack addict who wills one thing—his or her next hit of crack— is a person with purity of heart. What then is the wholeness that gives a person integrity?

No one achieves the full measure of integrity whose life falls under the dominion of gluttony, lust, sloth, pride, greed, anger, or envy, to cite a justly famous catalog of self-destroying sins. Moral wholeness cannot be achieved by anyone who commits murder, adultery, rape, theft, or perjury, or who is foul-mouthed, or whose thoughts and feelings are covetous, rancorous, or hateful. Along the same lines, we would not call morally whole a person who is foolish or unjust, reckless or cowardly, or who is without any sense of charity or has no faith in anything or anybody.

All such flaws are affronts to character excellence as a whole, and therefore to integrity. No one is without fault in every respect, but all the same, the aspiration to achieve integrity as fully as we can is the highest calling of a life well lived.

A simple test tells us how much integrity matters to us. In The Republic, Plato tells the story of the magical ring of Gyges, which can make whoever wears it invisible. The question is, How would you behave differently if you could make yourself invisible? When people do wrong, they try to make themselves as invisible as they can; they are motivated more by fear of detection than by integrity. Only a person who is good enough to care about behaving rightly, and not just about being caught, can become better.

The Morally Important and the Morally Problematic

What is morally important must be learned to understand what is morally problematic, whether in the moral instruction of children or the professional education and training of police or people in other walks of life. A person who lacks concern for others cannot appreciate moral questions about when deception is morally obligatory, right, or excusable. A person who has no sense of justice cannot understand disagreements about merit and affirmative action in personnel policies. A person who has no ideals cannot understand why they must not be betrayed through cowardice or laxity, or how ideals can conflict with one another.

Police executives, academy instructors, senior officers, and others in law enforcement can, of course, teach how to think through moral questions. We can show how to take stock, make a considered judgment, and respond effectively. We can teach that people deserve to be treated as valuable in themselves, just because they are people, and not merely as instruments. We can teach that we do what is right because it is right and not out of fear of detection or punishment. We can describe the way a fair-minded person deliberates about his behavior, that he is likely to ask, What if everyone behaved as I propose to behave—would that be possible or would it be self-defeating?

If a person considers lying for profit and asks whether everyone could do so, he sees that if everyone lied for personal advantage, then no one would trust anyone else where personal interests were involved, and no one could lie successfully. He can see that his own lie can be effective only if others do not lie, so if he lies he becomes a moral parasite who treats himself as having privileges others do not exercise. No fair-minded person is willing to treat himself with such favoritism. We can explain, as well, that such moral reasons are the most important reasons in deciding what to do.

Yet in teaching how to plan and implement responses to situations, we are, above all, refining intelligence. Powerful intelligence without good character is notoriously dangerous; because it spurns regard for others and for morality, it may be acquired by the successful contract killer, the shrewd drug dealer, or the corrupt public official.

Since the ideal is a combination of wisdom with good character, our instruction must be established by practice. Practice at behaving rightly establishes skillfulness, and with skill comes greater enjoyment; thus does our potential for good character—that element of the dove that is woven into our frame—come into the combination. Such experience at behaving well cannot be replaced by less intimate methods of instruction, and certainly not by holier-than-thou moralizing that implies a person of excellent character must shun every enjoyment of life. Practice and encouragement are necessary to moral wisdom because the proof of the quality of moral life is in living it.

The mission of policing can safely be entrusted only to those who grasp what is morally important and who respect integrity. Without this kind of personal character in police, no set of codes, rules, or laws can safeguard that mission from the ravages of police misconduct. No one need choose to be a police officer or to bear the public trust; but those who do so—no matter how naïvely and no matter how misguided their original expectations— must acquire the excellence of character necessary to live up to it.

3

The Mission of Police

Pride grows in the human heart like lard on a pig.

—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn¹

The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

—James Madison²

The mission of police in the United States, as in the other democracies, is to play a rightful part in the nation’s experiment in ordered liberty.

The Experiment in Ordered Liberty

The United States was established as a constitutional republic in which no person or group could rise to absolute power. Our experiment in government answerable to the public tests whether a country can maintain order and protect liberty. Powers are separated among executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each intended to serve as a check and a balance on the others and to be impervious to economic dominion by the private sector, just as the private sector is safeguarded from tyranny of government. Powers are balanced so that no person or agency can function without restraint.

When a country cannot provide order, its people are victimized by factions—whether in the rebellion in Massachusetts in 1786 (which led George Washington to conclude that America was on the verge of anarchy) or in the drug wars in the streets of our cities two centuries later. Yet when order is brought by the destruction of liberty, the people are victimized by tyrants.

Order with liberty cannot succeed if the government or the governed indulge themselves as they wish. Our ordered liberty is an experiment in the rule of laws that are impartial and that apply to governors and governed alike. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stressed the burden this places on us:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.³

Since the rule of law requires the keeping of peace, America’s government is also an experiment in law enforcement and peacekeeping. It is an experiment in whether policing can promote security and serve liberty for the sake of what Madison identified as the ultimate purpose of government:

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It has ever been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.⁴

The drafters of the Constitution were actively concerned about immoderation by both government and individuals. Alexander Hamilton cautioned in 1781 that government must have a proper degree of authority to make and execute the laws with vigour, for too little leads to anarchy.⁵ Too much, he believed, leads to tyranny. In 1787 Benjamin Rush was even more direct about the dangers of making government too weak to protect citizens from each other:

In our opposition to monarchy, we forgot that the temple of tyranny has two doors. We bolted one of them by proper restraints; but we left the other open by neglecting to guard against the effects of our own ignorance and licentiousness.⁶

The tension between order and liberty persists wherever men and women care about justice. Though a country dedicated to justice may tilt one way or the other, the experiment depends on the animating conviction, as constitutional scholar Robert Goldwin has explained, that while people are not angels, they are still good enough to govern themselves.⁷

The founders knew that the system they framed was imperfect, that even good people are motivated by self-interest, and that all of us make grievous mistakes. No nation can hope to become perfect, without any abuses of freedom. Efforts to prevent every social evil have often led to worse excesses—including religious and political persecution.⁸

Justice in a society rests on restraint, by government and by the citizenry. Laws provide both a guide and a motive for such restraint for the good of everyone.

Disorder and Injustice

When I describe these American traditions to police, they point to the injustices suffered by many citizens:

It is not just when perpetrators go free to repeat their crimes, or when victims know that their assailants walk the streets with impunity. Our country cannot be complacent when the bare minimum of civilized order is destroyed in ghettos by drug dealers and street criminals, and when ghetto children are deprived of all opportunity for healthy growth and worthwhile aspiration. It is not just when a known perpetrator in custody possesses information essential to saving the life or sanity of an innocent victim and will not divulge it in interrogation that gives undue priority to the perpetrator’s civil rights.

They are right, of course. Immoderation, license, and violence in America are pressing, perhaps now more than ever before. If citizens’ rights are largely secure from governmental excesses, they are not safe from individual and group excesses. Although interests and ambitions inevitably conflict among human beings, diversity in America has gone far beyond the legitimate boundaries of pluralism.

Pluralism means the range of views held by reasonable people of goodwill who restrain self-interest. Today, our diversity includes individuals and groups with no regard for civility, decency, and legality. The enforcement of law is a crushing problem in the face of deep divisions over what the laws should be and over the claim of law to our respect. When a country’s most privileged citizens break the law—as in public corruption and white collar crime—and crime rates in urban areas put the entire public at risk, the situation is very serious.

Street crime has become mindlessly vicious in our time. Charles Silberman noted:

The most disturbing aspect of the growth in street crime is the turn toward viciousness, as well as violence, on the part of many young criminals. A lawyer who was a public defender noted for her devotion to her clients’ interests, as well as her legal ability, speaks of a terrifying generation of kids that emerged during the late 1960s and early 1970s. When she began practicing, she told me, adolescents and young men charged with robbery had, at worst, pushed or shoved a pedestrian or shopkeeper to steal money or merchandise; members of the new generation kill, maim, and injure without reason or remorse.⁹

Police, along with many ghetto residents, are exposed to this violence every day. Describing the Henry Horner Homes on Dameon Street in Chicago, Adam Walinsky wrote:

Dominant authority is exercised by the gangs: organized groups, led by men of thirty or forty, organizing and recruiting down to the age of eight. . . . The gangs engage in regular and constant warfare for control of the drug and vice trades . . . armed with pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, and occasional grenades. . . . Children dodge machine gun crossfire as they leave school. . . . Women and children are mugged by youths of all ages. . . . Eight-year-olds, serving as drug salesmen, have been shot in the foot to encourage greater effort. . . . Children grow as in the midst of a war. . . . The children almost routinely witness friends and acquaintances shot and bleeding to death in the street. . . . The neighborhood has no place to buy food. . . . Move out? This is not the worst housing project in Chicago. Even if there is room in another, the Housing Authority assigns better apartments only when bribed. . . . In Detroit, the police do not keep count of shot children; the newspapers counted 270 last year.¹⁰

These citizens live and die deprived of the liberty and justice the Constitution is intended to secure for them. They live, in Chesterton’s words, in an armed camp . . . a chaotic world in which criminals, the children of chaos, visit tyrannical terror upon them every day. The Wall Street Journal noted the rise of vigilantism in America in the burning down of crack houses in Detroit, Miami, and the South Bronx, and in the lethal beatings of muggers:

Vigilantes return . . . whenever citizens come to believe that the law enforcement agencies don’t work. Right now, the vigilantes are back, especially in this country’s most beleaguered, drug-infested central city neighborhoods. . . . The police fail because the lawyers won’t let them succeed. The lawyers prevail because liberal jurists, cheered on by columnists and editorial writers intent on expanding their notions of civil rights, have erected a vast legal jungle gym of evidentiary procedures, subjected police conduct to extensive second-guessing, and eliminated nearly all discretion from the cop on the beat—for example, by outlawing vagrancy laws. . . . The system of criminal justice . . . is failing the people who need it most.¹¹

Although police can still exercise discretion on the beat, the problems of the criminal justice system are real. Many officers—and prosecutors— consider specific laws self-defeating. When police officers arrest a person who throws his narcotics to the ground, the officers may momentarily lose sight of the package. But if they testify in court that they did so, the case is likely to be dismissed. Some officers perjure themselves rather than lose the case. If an officer admits that he lost sight of the drugs, some police, attorneys, and judges infer that his testimony has been bought by the dealers.

Lawmakers sometimes present police with unenforceable laws or fail to provide the funds necessary for enforcement. Courts issue rulings that impose unreasonable standards of proof, undermining public respect for law. Greater wisdom in legislators and judges will be required to square the balance between order and liberty, together with more communication to the public by police organizations, as in the growing opposition to easy purchase of cheap handguns. Convincing testimony by the public about the erosion of its safety must be joined with widespread participation in the electoral process.

Since inefficiency cannot be entirely avoided, however, the system will remain imperfect. Safeguarding rights of due process interferes with efforts to detect criminal activity, apprehend perpetrators, and secure convictions. The separation of powers does not place a premium on expediency. Tyranny does—and the results are terrifying.

Against Tyranny

The Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua failed to provide any economic security—or hope—to its people. Students carried their desks to and from school to prevent their being stolen; school toilets were stolen. Robbers armed with AK457 rifles prowled neighborhoods stealing everything from manhole covers to clothes hung out to dry. Neighbors kidnapped each other’s dogs for ransom.¹² Yet so tyrannical was the government that at a ceremony opening the sugar harvest Agrarian Reform Minister Jaime Wheelock threatened a gathering of sugar workers . . . , ‘If anyone raises a strike banner here, we will cut off his hands.’¹³

In Iran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini, mass executions and torture were routine. Iranian government documents confirmed approximately 12,000 executions in the second half of 1988. Women were executed, or beaten until the skin fell off their feet, raped by police, and disfigured with acid—and their children were slaughtered—for appearing in public with their faces uncovered. Public officials extorted bribes for release from prison: $125 for the crime of an exposed lock of hair; $900 for wearing fingernail polish.¹⁴

Such remorseless arrogance of power was not new, though tyrants of our time may exercise greater dominion by their use of modern bureaucracies and technologies. Such perpetrators of evil seem capable of immense self-deception; they persuade themselves that whatever they do is justified by circumstances.

On the strength of his experience under tyranny, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn maintained that to do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good.¹⁵ William Parker said something similar when he became chief of police of Los Angeles in 1950:

As practicing policemen we are familiar with the fact that the average criminal does not believe that he is doing wrong. As he views the situation, he is doing right. However faulty his premises, however weak his logic, and however transitory his beliefs, he acts in accord with his own concepts.¹⁶

Although those statements omit that right and wrong are simply of no consequence for some people, they do highlight human capacities for self-deception and self-aggrandizement, and for judging oneself favorably. Awareness of these tendencies lies at the base of America’s doctrine of separation of powers. When self-righteousness or remorselessness joins with unrestrained power, injustice and terror become inevitable. By restraining the power that resides in any individual or group, the worst horrors may be avoided.

Many tyrants, as in the postczarist Soviet Union, celebrated the unrestrained exercise of power. Solzhenitsyn explained:

The supreme accuser—in other words, the Prosecutor General— informs us that the All-Russian Central Executive Committee . . . "pardons and punishes, at its own discretion without any limitation whatever. For example, a six-month sentence was changed to ten years. . . . All of this, Krylenko explains, shows the superiority of our system over the false theory of the separation of powers. . . . It is very good that the legislative and executive power are not divided by a thick wall as they are in the West. All problems can be decided quickly."¹⁷

Those who want to unite the powers of government believe that its purpose is to perpetuate itself or extend its power. This is the reason the Soviet secret police—the Cheka—was empowered to do anything to preserve the dictatorship (ostensibly, in the interest of the public) and the reason the Communist party, led by Lenin, claimed that its mistreatment of the people was necessary for the revolution. The viciousness of that dogma continued to be seen in the Soviet Union as dissidents were imprisoned, freedoms of religion and press denied, and due process mocked in show trials. The United States was established in opposition to such arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty.

Still, we may be tempted by expediency to decide things quickly, without a lot of technicalities and restraints. Confronted with merciless criminals who savage innocent victims, we may feel justified in taking illegal shortcuts.

But expediency pushes us onto dangerous ground. Expediency of the worst kind insists that the end justifies the means and that might makes right. In a setting such as the former Soviet Union, the courts were not concerned for justice, law, extenuating circumstances, or guilt or innocence. They proceeded on the basis of considerations of expediency, as Solzhenitsyn explained. He continued:

That was the way it was in those years: people lived and breathed and then suddenly found out that their existence was inexpedient. And it must also be kept in mind that it was not what he had done that constituted the defendant’s burden, but what he might do if he were not shot now. We protect ourselves not only against the past but also against the future.¹⁸

This is the way unrestrained power works. Expediency favors punishing the innocent to ensure that the guilty do not go free; it presumes the guilt of the accused, and it accuses anyone whose ideas or behavior are inconvenient to the tyrant. It imposes punishments that do not fit the crime. But punishing the innocent does not ensure that the guilty will also fall into the net. The presumption of guilt is therefore not only unjust but also impractical.

In fact, the presumption of guilt and the power to punish without due process may not even be significant deterrents to some kinds of crimes. Sir Leon Radzinowicz, then director of Cambridge University’s Department of Criminal Science, reported that no national characteristic, no political regime, no system of law, police, justice, punishment, treatment, or even terror has rendered a country exempt from crime.¹⁹ His point was confirmed by figures released in August 1988 by Igor Karpets, then director of the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Soviet Legislation. Karpets described a high incidence of embezzlement in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s when many people confused their own pockets with those of the state. In 1987, 95,000 were convicted of hooliganism, and nearly 5,000 were convicted of premeditated murder for the first half of that year.²⁰

In America we have chosen the presumption of innocence out of regard for justice and for the importance of the individual. For all its deficiencies, our system exhibits greater respect for the dignity of humanity than any other ever devised. Within it, police are charged to respect the lawful liberty of the people while applying authority, good judgment, and power to see that order and peace do not collapse under individual or group excesses. The role of police in the experiment in ordered liberty must be respected to grasp the specifics of their mission.

Mission

Some authorities, politicians, and citizens’ groups say that the primary work of police is crime prevention. Others emphasize peacekeeping and maintenance of order. Some stress the enforcement of the law and the apprehension of perpetrators; others stress social services. Some scholars are especially interested in police work with juveniles, while other scholars and practitioners claim that this work should be done by separate agencies. Social movements, as during Prohibition, cast the police as enforcers of morals, and legislation can have the same effect. And some people expect the police to combat every social ill.

The police cannot do everything expected of them by everyone. In ghettos where social ills are worst and street crime is relentless, the problems require extreme remedies, which go far beyond anything the police can deliver. Citizens who appeal to the police suffer reprisals from the gangs, which are so powerful that enforcement of the law and protection of the public are largely impossible.

Attitudes have changed since the late James Baldwin characterized police in the ghetto as an occupying army. Because of drugs, gangs, and guns, many ghetto citizens want more and better police protection, not less. More crime is intraracial than interracial—simply because of the proximity of potential victims—and the innocent victims of ghetto crimes know it.

The desperation of ghetto residents makes their expectations of the police unrealistic. In the South Bronx, I once accompanied police to a tenement where a woman had been bitten by a Great Dane. Other residents were frightened, and the owner of the dog—which never had any shots for distemper or rabies—wanted it removed. Children skated noisily through the halls on discarded metal food containers. As the police arrived, residents assured each other, It’s all right now, everything will be OK now, the police are here.

Of course, it was not all right. Emergency calls were coming from other areas of the precinct; the victim expected police to transport her to a hospital that was within easy walking distance; and the residents expected the police to substitute for the ASPCA and take the dog away. The two officers explained what they could and could not do, saw that the dog was confined, told the victim how to get to the hospital, and notified the ASPCA to collect the dog as soon as possible. Then they rushed to another call.

Unrealistic expectations of the police are not confined to ghettos. In 1988 citizens of Tampa, Florida, learned that a convicted rapist, who had cut off the arms of a victim, was living there after being released from prison in another state. In televised proceedings, many citizens became abusive when police explained that they could not violate the man’s civil rights and drive him away. I pay your salary, and you’re supposed to protect me, they said. It’s your job.

Most knowledgeable accounts of police mission stress law enforcement, peacekeeping, and delivery of social services. The Police Foundation, for instance, observed in 1972, "The Foundation fully realizes that improved police services must strike a balance between effective crime fighting and humane efforts to keep the peace.²¹ David A. Hansen, who served as supervising captain of the Daly City, California, Police Department, affirmed that view: The keeping of the peace and the protection of life and property by those who are police officers—this is the police function."²² Professor Lee W. Potts rehearsed data confirming this view in actual practice:

One of the common findings of the volume of data developed on the police in the late 1960s and early 1970s was the falseness of the belief that law enforcement dominates police work. . . . Rather than being primarily a law enforcement officer, the average policeman is primarily a peace officer. His time is spent performing public services such as directing traffic and escorting vehicles or performing social welfare services such as dealing with the mentally deranged, attempted suicides, domestic crisis intervention, and neighborhood disputes.²³

Potts added that this multiplicity of responsibilities can cause tensions for officers, since law enforcement duties may require their coercive role to be paramount while as peace officers, they most often find their public servant role to be paramount.²⁴

As Potts suggested, the mission to protect and to serve is not so simple as it may appear when emblazoned on a patrol car. The two functions require common skills, but they require distinct and separate skills as well. Furthermore, law enforcement frequently involves legal and institutional guidelines more rigorous than do police duties in peacekeeping and other social services.

In 1936 August Vollmer, a pioneer of modern American policing, wrote that the original purpose of police organizations was protection against the occurrence of major crimes and the apprehension of perpetrators of such offenses. Although he believed that this remained the primary duty of the police, he insisted that

police departments are also called upon to perform every conceivable kind of service. No federal or state law or city ordinance is passed which does not call for the attention of some police organization. Responsibility for sick, injured, and missing persons, for the insane and the feeble-minded, as well as the investigation of suicide cases, is assigned these public agents. At any time of the day or night, citizens may report suspicious persons or circumstances and request action by the police. In times of disaster, strikes, or riots, it is the duty of the police to preserve, if possible, or to restore, peace and order.²⁵

In 1978 Charles Silberman described how the diverse functions of the police are interrelated, in terms of work by sociologist Egon Bittner:

There are common denominators to almost all the situations I have described that make them uniquely a police responsibility. To begin with, the police are called because they are available— twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. . . . More important, the police are called because of a sense of urgency; what unites the various situations with which police deal is the fact that someone thought emergency help was needed to prevent injury, loss, harm, disorder, or inconvenience. [Egon] Bittner writes that whether a police officer is preventing someone from jumping off a bridge, rescuing people from a burning building, dispersing a crowd that might hamper the firemen, settling a domestic dispute or barroom brawl, breaking up a robbery in progress, or arresting a suspected burglar, the incident involves "something-that-ought-not-to-be-happening-now-and-about-which-someone-had-better-do-something-now." . . . Most important of all, the police are called into urgent situations because they, and only they, are empowered to use force to set matters right. . . . Much of the artistry of police work lies in the ability to handle explosive situations without resorting to force. But the fact that the police can use force is uppermost in the minds of those who call on them for help; it also directly affects the way other people behave.²⁶

Within that rough consensus about manifold functions are many disagreements about priorities. But police are expected to fulfill their obligations professionally—that is, competently and honestly, and with accountability to supervisors for their performance. Disagreements abound about the appropriate levels of autonomy and authority of police administrators, elected officials, and citizen review boards and of the public itself.

Still, the law enforcement community and scholars of policing agree that the police cannot fulfill their mission without effective communication with the citizenry and without public