Corrective Action Plan

/in /by

Resource: Scottsdale Police Department Strategic Plan

Scenario:

You are a member of the Scottsdale Police Department’s team of strategy leaders and your role is to develop a strategy for measuring the outcomes of the strategic plan.

Write a 525-word APA-style outline (not a narrative paper) in which you summarize a strategy for measuring the outcomes of the Scottsdale Police Department’s strategic plan.

Include the following in your outline:

  • Introduction – (no more than two or three sentences)
  • Stages of plan implementation
  • Overview of stakeholders involved in the process
  • Examples for measurements of outcomes
  • Rationale and justifications for measuring outcomes
  • Explanation of the gap analysis
  • Conclusion – (no more than two or three sentences)

Format your outline according to APA guidelines. Provide at least two scholarly sources that contributed to the creation of your outline.

Submit your assignment.

Community Variance And The Police Worksheet

/in /by

Instructions:

leb.fbi.gov https://leb.fbi.gov/2015/december/human-factors-in-law-enforcement-leadership

Lieutenant Bone serves with the Los Angeles, California, Police Department and is an adjuct instructor at East Los Angeles College and the Police Academy at Rio Hondo College in

Whittier.

Dr. Normore is a professor and chair of educational leadership and graduate education at California State

University, Dominguez Hills.

FBI — Human Factors in Law Enforcement Leadership

Human Factors in Law Enforcement Leadership

By Darius H. Bone, M.A., Anthony H. Normore, Ph.D, and Mitch Javidi, Ph.D.

12/9/2015

 

https://leb.fbi.gov
https://leb.fbi.gov/2015/december/human-factors-in-law-enforcement-leadership

 

Dr. Javidi is the cofounder of two private firms focused on public safety training and development in Holly

Springs, North Carolina.

The discipline of human factors focuses on understanding the interactions among people and other elements of a system; it applies theory, principles, data, and methods to help optimize employee well-being and overall agency performance.[1] The specific workplace elements involved include the environmental, organizational, and individual characteristics that influence behavior.

Pertaining to law enforcement, a focus on human factors can help substantially increase officer and civic safety, create closer ties between police agencies and the public, and enhance community leadership. Such a focus can be accomplished through an agency’s commitment to continually seek improved training and threat- and error- management systems.

Current research emphasizes the need for a proactive, credible response to human error within an organization.[2] Perhaps highly functioning agencies are distinguished most by their preoccupation with the possibility of failure.[3] They expect errors and train their workforce to recognize and recover from them. These agencies continually rehearse familiar scenarios of failures and strive to imagine new ones.[4] Instead of isolating mistakes, they generalize them. Rather than making local repairs, they look for system reforms.

Law enforcement leaders should challenge themselves and their employees to increase safety margins by focusing on human factors. By doing so, they will improve proactive communication at their level of influence and develop an organizational culture that values safety and wellness.

Officers engaged in critical activities in which they risk serious injury or death will benefit from recognizing how human performance relates to their jobs. From the probationary officer to the tenured executive, they can make their jobs safer and help protect their colleagues and the community.

Agencies immediately can incorporate some basic human factors concepts. Hopefully, police leaders will continue studying the subject to foster a culture of collaboration between law enforcement at all levels with public and private entities to achieve the common goals of safety and communication. Doing so will help build community trust and improve public perception.

ADDRESSING HUMAN FACTORS

Leaders must identify and mitigate elements that link law enforcement tasks with complaints, litigation, loss of community trust and support, internal cynicism, damage to equipment and resources, injuries, deaths, riots, and catastrophes.[5] They need to consider how the brain interacts with the body and decision-making abilities during stressful incidents.

Particular attention must focus on understanding how officers perform under stress and making thoughtful adjustments to certain critical activities to make their jobs safer. Personnel at all levels of

 

 

Personnel at all levels of the organization, regardless of rank, must be actively involved.the organization, regardless of rank, must be actively involved. The synergy that develops has potential and can help grow individual leadership skills and improved communication.

Research encourages a focus on human factors and risk-management strategies.[6] Law enforcement leaders have important reasons for accepting these measures to proactively mitigate causal factors.

Personnel routinely make critical decisions.

Officers can understand their capabilities and limitations better.

Leaders owe it to their frontline personnel to keep them as safe as possible.

Officers and their departments can educate citizens further about use-of-force policies and practices.

Agencies can improve communication with the public by proactively humanizing officers and develop reciprocal respect intended to bolster mutual trust and appreciation.

Officers can respond more effectively to critical incidents.

Recent protests have demonstrated a gap in public understanding of policies concerning use-of-force. By offering general explanations and optimizing human factors, agencies can help citizens become better informed and see officers as human beings, rather than robotic enforcers-of-the-law.

Costs and lawsuits, especially those concerning critical incidents, associated with law enforcement must be mitigated through continued improvements.

Research has indicated that highly functioning organizations that deal with around-the-clock shift work involving considerable risks have done an impeccable job reducing injury, death, and liability by focusing on human factors.[7]

ENHANCING OFFICER WELLNESS

A critical focus for agencies is the importance of officers’ well-being. To this end, several areas come into focus: physical conditioning, fatigue, and stress.

Physical Conditioning

Agencies must have a strong commitment to physical fitness.[8] Officers have a physically and mentally demanding job that at times is life threatening, and departments need to make protecting the health of their personnel a priority.

Leaders actively should model and encourage wellness. Likewise, if officers appreciate the challenges their job entails, they will embrace the importance of physical fitness. They must remain vigilant not to allow complacency—a common human characteristic—to lead to their demise.

Physical fitness combined with confidence in their abilities and command presence will help officers avoid harm caused by suspects. To this end, law enforcement personnel on the frontline must take an honest self-assessment of their fitness level and make positive and realistic changes when necessary.[9] Officers who have poor physical fitness should seek help in achieving optimal health. They must believe they will get healthier, rather than think it is too late. Positive thoughts lead to positive action.

Fatigue

 

 

A critical focus for agencies is the importance of officers’ well-being.

A common health and safety concern for all law enforcement officers, fatigue is characterized by increased discomfort, lessened capacity for work, reduced efficiency, and loss of power or capacity to respond to stimulation and usually is accompanied by a feeling of tiredness.[10] Overtime, special-duty assignments, secondary employment, and shift work contribute to fatigue.

Managers in many occupations recognize the negative effect of fatigue on safety, health, and performance and minimize the impact by restricting duty hours. Likewise, the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that all law enforcement agencies provide training and adopt policies to minimize the effects of fatigue on officers prior to and during their duty assignments.[11]

Fatigue can lead to performance consequences, such as impaired driving (including traveling home after work), microsleep, hampered decision making, mood changes, and diminished motor skills.[12] Research has shown that remaining awake for 20 to 25 hours reduces performance to resemble that of someone with a 0.10 blood alcohol content.[13] If not controlled sleep deprivation and fatigue experienced over long periods of time can lead to a multitude of health and performance consequences, such as diabetes, cognitive impairment, irritability, memory lapses, weight gain, heart disease, increased reaction time, decreased accuracy, impaired moral judgment, and hallucinations.[14]

Stress

Officers can experience high levels of stress during critical incidents.[15] During such situations the brain experiences the phenomenon known as “fight-or-flight,” when overwhelmed people can completely shut down or panic. Due to dramatic changes in hormones released by the body to initiate a fight-or-flight response to a perceived threat, human beings experience psychological and physiological changes that they have little or no control over.[16]

Further, the impact of intense stress before, during, and after an event affects the details of what officers remember about the situation.[17] During such incidents officers focus predominantly on the threat or personal survival. Because of their selective attention under these circumstances, they have a low rate of recall of information subconsciously deemed unrelated to the perceived threat. This results in a specific and vivid, though not necessarily accurate or complete, memory for particular aspects of the event.

One study focused on changes that occur because of high stress or deadly force encounters in law enforcement.[18] Besides changes in hearing and vision, it examined variations in thinking, awareness, memory, and performance under stress. The results revealed occurrence rates of various effects resulting from such stressful encounters.

Fast motion time (17 percent)

Slow motion time (62 percent)

Diminished sound (84 percent)

Intensified sound (17 percent)

Tunnel vision (79 percent)

Heightened visual clarity (71 percent)

Memory loss for part of the event (52 percent)

 

 

Memory loss for some of an action (46 percent)

Memory distortion (21 percent)

“Automatic pilot” (74 percent)

Dissociation (39 percent)

Intrusive, distracting thoughts (26 percent)

Temporary paralysis (7 percent)

A substantial part of the reactions has to do with thinking, awareness, and memory, which pertain more to how the brain operates under stress than it does with just the eye and ear. Seeing, hearing, and other senses operate at the directions of both the conscious and unconscious mind. For instance, a blink because of an object coming toward the eye is an instinctive reaction of the unconscious mind, while a directed weapon stare is a reaction of the conscious mind.[19]

Even in nonstress situations, when something piques individuals’ interest, they begin to have selective attention. When people exclusively focus on some aspect of an event to the exclusion of other objects in the sensory environment, their minds will direct the senses to give them the information at the speed needed. If whatever persons focus on begins to create an emotional response, such as fear, various reactions happen that amplify the sense, thought, and behavioral processes.

TAKING RESPONSIBILTY

Faced with limited resources brought on by today’s economic climate, administrators who create and implement policies may not understand or appreciate the importance of how human factors impact the law enforcement profession. They need to adopt a greater leadership role and seek additional education on human factors. Ultimately, they must take responsibility for their own safety, as well as that of their partners and communities. As more leaders become educated on human factors, they can help effect change and improve safety margins for their officers and their department.

The first question management should ask when searching for ways to increase officer safety is, Are the officers fit enough to perform the task? Although law enforcement personnel hold responsibility for their own physical fitness, management’s obligation to officer safety must remain paramount. This can be a complex process when unions, legal issues, and limited resources appear to impede the goal of fitness. Agency leaders should set a tone of care and compassion for officers’ well-being and develop strategies to achieve the goal of physical fitness for all employees, including civilian staff. To this end, agencies can consider several strategies.

Offer fitness incentives, such as pay differential, awards, or uniform medals.

Educate employees on the value and benefits of fitness.

Establish or refurbish a gym.

Seek community support.

Obtain group discounts at local gyms and consider partnerships with other agencies to increase negotiation leverage.

Implement required fitness levels for specialized assignments or promotions.

An agency’s commitment to fitness likely will lead to greater appreciation for human factors, improved health, increased morale, and reduced absences due to illness or injury. Regardless of what positive strategies leaders use, dedication to fitness is a step forward for developing a focus on human factors at the operational level.

Initially, agencies may find establishing such a focus overwhelming. Having well-trained and knowledgeable personnel devoted to improving the agency’s capacity to better understand the subject can seem challenging.

 

 

Nevertheless, this should not dissuade agency leaders. A dearth of research on human factors has been catalogued in the military, aviation, aerospace, and academic professions. However, law enforcement agencies interested in understanding the topic can heed several suggestions.

Consult with either the in-house or another agency’s aviation or air support division successful at training in human factors.

Seek assistance from local colleges and universities that have risk-management courses and workshops.

Contact private companies that provide human factors courses for law enforcement.

Encourage leaders to be proactive and creative, and reward them for their efforts and successes.

To begin, agencies should set short-range goals and take small steps to identify critical areas where safety has been a concern, such as employee wellness, pursuit driving, arrests, use of force, and marksmanship abilities. Public complaints also should be considered to determine whether human factors, such as fatigue, could be a contributing cause.

Implementing a Focus on Human Factors

Identify a lead person or team to facilitate the process. Select proactive, progressive leaders committed to the agency’s mission.

Include personnel at the operational level in developing solutions. Require open communication; egos should be checked at the door, regardless of individuals’ rank or

status. Adopt a safety culture. For example, when accidents happen, focus on preventing reoccurrence,

rather than placing blame. Examine whether an act was intentional before taking corrective or disciplinary action.

When accidents occur consider how human factors may have been impacted by the environment (e.g., weather, lighting, social, political, organizational, or training) and machines (e.g., weapons,

automobiles, electronic devices, or cameras). Following accidents take an honest, objective look at all levels of the organization with the goal of

preventing or limiting future incidents. While conducting research on accidents, avoid becoming consumed with statistics. Often,

insufficient data points are captured to conduct a meaningful analysis. Where human factors are identified, reasonable action equates to corrective steps.

EDUCATING THE PUBLIC

With the exponential growth of social media, around-the-clock news coverage, and the sensationalism of law enforcement from movies, citizens easily can become jaded about how officers police the community. Consequently, educating the public on the realities of policing can prove challenging.

However, agencies can confront this challenge by closely and proactively examining their community policing efforts to humanize officers. By sharing some of the human factors involved in policing, especially during stressful incidents, the public can see officers as real people with vulnerabilities. For example, when explaining to the community why officers simply cannot shoot a gun out of a suspect’s hand, leaders can discuss what happens to the human body during times of intense stress (e.g., tunnel vision, increased adrenaline, faster heart rate, and heavier breathing).

Agencies should note that while some issues may seem clear to the general public, many people get information

 

 

By sharing some of the human factors involved in policing, especially during stressful incidents, the public can see officers as real people with vulnerabilities.

about law enforcement from television and action-oriented movies. When discussing use-of-force rationale or policies, an officer’s self-awareness becomes critical. Questions from citizens can elicit a brash response from officers because the answer may seem obvious. Still, inquiries lend themselves to opportunities for developing greater ties with the community and increasing support and respect for the law enforcement profession.

CONCLUSION

“Law enforcement is an honorable, challenging, rewarding and unique undertaking. Few, if any, careers require the diversity of knowledge and skills, along with the steadfastness of attitude, as does this noble profession.”[20] However, policing also is filled with peril, and, thus, officers must think critically and objectively about themselves, their organization, and the population they serve. Emotional, psychological, and social survival equally are as important.

Police organizations need to instill safety, security, and prosperity into the community and organization. Rebuilding trust and respect is paramount. To do so agencies must steer clear of barriers to transparency that erode trust and prevent safe, open, and honest communication. They also need to learn to eliminate root causes of enduring problems in the future.[21]

Endnotes

[1] “Ergonomic Principles in the Design of Work Systems,” International Organization for Standardization, accessed July 27, 2015, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=35885.

[2] Jack Colwell, “Why Human Factors in Law Enforcement?” Human Factors in Law Enforcement, December 22, 2009, accessed July 27, 2015, http://humanfactorsinlawenforcement.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-human-factors-in- law-enforcement.html.

[3] James Reason, “Human Error: Models and Management,” British Medical Journal 320, no. 7237 (March 18, 2000): 768-70, accessed July 27, 2015, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117770/.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Colwell, “Why Human Factors in Law Enforcement?”

[6] Reason, “Human Error.”

[7] Ibid.

[8] Paul R. Howe, Leadership and Training for the Fight: Using Special Operations Principles to Succeed in Law Enforcement, Business, and War (New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing, 2011).

 

 

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid; and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, Risk Management Handbook, FAA-H-8083-2 (Washington, DC, 2009), accessed July 28, 2015, http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/FAA-H-8083-2.pdf.

[11] The International Association of Chiefs of Police supports the National Violent Death Reporting System. See “Support of National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS),” International Association of Chiefs of Police, accessed July 28, 2015, http://www.theiacp.org/ViewResult?SearchID=2060.

[12] For information on microsleep see University of Wisconsin-Madison, “Microsleep: Brain Regions Can Take Short Naps During Wakefulness, Leading to Errors,” ScienceDaily, April 28, 2011, accessed July 28, 2015, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131814.htm.

[13] Howe, Leadership and Training for the Fight; and Nicole Lamond and Drew Dawson, “Quantifying the Performance Impairment Associated With Fatigue,” Journal of Sleep Research 8, no. 4 (December 1999): 255-262, accessed July 28, 2015, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2869.1999.00167.x/full.

[14] Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, “Searching for Stress in All the Wrong Places: Combating Chronic Organizational Stressors in Policing,” Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 5, no. 3 (July 2004): 259-277, accessed July 28, 2015, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/156142604200227594#abstract.

[15] Howe, Leadership and Training for the Fight.

[16] Kevin Gilmartin, “Hypervigilance: A Learned Perceptual Set and Its Consequences on Police Stress,” in Emotional Survival in Law Enforcement: A Guide for Law Enforcement Officers and Their Families (Tucson, AZ: E-S Press, 2002), accessed July 28, 2015, http://emotionalsurvival.com/hypervigilance.htm.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Alexis Artwohl and Loren W. Christiansen, Deadly Force Encounters: What Cops Need to Know to Mentally and Physically Prepare for and Survive a Gunfight (Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1997).

[19] Ibid.

[20] Colwell, “Why Human Factors in Law Enforcement?”

[21] Ibid.

 

 

Copyright of FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin is the property of Superintendent of Documents and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

provided in Topic Materials.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

1. Most individuals hold memberships within, or have loyalties to, several external communities at the same time.

How might this complicate the ability of the police to forge and maintain good working relationships with individual citizens? (200-250 words)

2. Today’s “identity politics” refers to people segmenting themselves into specific social groups (based on religion, race, gender, etc.), and then promoting only a specific set of political viewpoints or goals that would best serve that particular group. Some argue that an ideology promoting this type of division is self-serving at best, and profoundly destructive to community cohesion and safety at worst. Others see no problem with this segmenting of society.

Does the issue of “identity politics” further complicate the task of police trying to find common ground with community members, and trying to convince them that they are “on their side”? (300-350 words)

3. Given the intense division among racial, ethnic, gender and socioeconomic lines in some communities today, how can police help to ease these divisions and encourage communities to be united in creating a safe environment for all? (350-450 words)

What do you think are the implications of Rios

/in /by

What do you think are the implications of Rios, Prieto, and Ibarra’s (2020) research about policing of gang members for the current social uprisings regarding public calls for police reform?

  • Specifically, what can the concepts of Mano Suave and Mano Dura policing tell us about the CAUSES of the current protests?
  • What can the concepts of Mano Suave and Mano Dura policing tell us about the SOLUTIONS to the current protests?
  • Finally, do you think police should be:

A) Defunded, with some of the money that used to go to police reallocated to social services like mental health, social work, and education

B) Abolished, and replaced with community-based groups designed and trained to support the protection of life, the reduction of harm, and the resolution of conflict

C) NOT defunded or abolished, but retrained, with revisions made to recruitment strategies and requirements, increased standards for officer behavior, a database for police who do misconduct, and other reforms

OR do you think that

D) No changes are needed to policing in the United States

Make sure you explain and justify your answer with examples and concepts from our readings this semester, particularly Rios et al. (2020)!

PLEASE READ ATTACHMENT AND ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOVE

NO PLAGIARIZING 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419897348

American Sociological Review 2020, Vol. 85(1) 58 –75 © American Sociological Association 2020 DOI: 10.1177/0003122419897348 journals.sagepub.com/home/asr

Since at least the 1970s, hot spot policing, proac- tive policing, and other investigatory and puni- tive policing approaches have played a role in criminalizing poor communities of color (Alex- ander 2010; Brunson and Gau 2014; Fagan et al. 2016; Forman 2004; Soss and Weaver 2017). Such practices emphasize increased officer con- tacts with suspicious people and represent a general shift from a culture of investigating crime to investigating individuals who are believed prone to commit crime (Dubber 2000). Punitive policies focused on proactive interven- tion and police saturation extend a historical pattern of racialized criminalization in the use of

stops (Epp, Maynard-Moody, and Haider- Markel 2014), searches (Jones-Brown, Gill, and Trone 2010), policing (Boyles 2015; Goffman 2014; Rios 2011; Stuart 2016), and force (Terrill and Reisig 2003). Stop-and-frisk is one type of

897348ASRXXX10.1177/0003122419897348American Sociological ReviewRios et al. research-article2020

aUniversity of California-Santa Barbara bUniversity of San Diego

Corresponding Author: Victor M. Rios, Department of Sociology, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Email: vrios@ucsb.edu

Mano Suave–Mano Dura: Legitimacy Policing and Latino Stop-and-Frisk

Victor M. Rios,a Greg Prieto,b and Jonathan M. Ibarraa

Abstract Stop-and-frisk and other punitive policing practices disproportionately affect marginalized communities of color. In response to calls for reform, police departments have implemented community policing programs aimed at improving relations with racialized communities. This study examines how a police unit used courtesy and respect in its engagement with a criminalized population, gang-associated Latinos, while relying on the stop-and-frisk practice. Our study reveals contextual and situational contradictions between modern police departments’ attempts to establish legitimacy and the hegemonic practice of investigatory stops. Drawing on observations and interviews conducted during a ride-along study, we find that stop-and-frisk, simultaneously used with reform practices like courtesy policing, yield a paradoxical policing approach, “the legitimacy policing continuum.” Officers regularly articulate a goal of respectfully interacting with courtesy to build community and trust— what we term “the mano suave”—while practicing a dominant logic of crime prevention through punitive measures—what we term “the mano dura.” We argue that community and courtesy policing are drawn on strategically in interaction and ultimately intertwined with and constrained by the racial bias at the heart of punitive policing practices like stop-and- frisk.

Keywords policing, criminalization, gangs, racial profiling, procedural justice, stop-and-frisk, Latinos

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/asr
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0003122419897348&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-01-30
cesarg
Highlight

 

Rios et al. 59

investigatory stop, in which police observations of minor illicit activity provide the occasion to question and search a subject of interest about suspected criminal activity (Jones-Brown et al. 2010).

A great deal of academic inquiry focuses on stop-and-frisk as a form of racial profiling, specifically with African Americans and to a lesser extent with Latinos (Alpert, Macdon- ald, and Dunham 2005; Barlow and Barlow 2002; Durán 2009; Epp et al. 2014; Gabbidon and Greene 2012; Glaser 2014; Glover 2009; Petrocelli, Piquero, and Smith 2003; Pool 2012; Reck 2014; Rios 2017; Weitzer and Tuch 2002; Wordes and Bynum 1995). This investigatory stop finds its legal basis in the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio (1968), which authorizes officers to pat-down sus- pects when they have “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity. Scholars have argued that stop-and-frisk represents more than increased legal latitude for police tactics; it serves as the structural precondition for a broader shift in the theory and practice of modern policing, seeking greater effectiveness by preventing crime before it can occur (Epp et al. 2014; Glover 2009; Jones-Brown et al. 2010). Stop- and-frisk, even when conducted with cour- tesy and respect, has been interpreted by researchers and courts to function as a form of racial profiling (White and Fradella 2016).

In response to widespread criticism of racial profiling and racialized police violence, police departments have attempted to imple- ment reforms and improve community–police relations (see, e.g., President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 2015; U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 2015). This historical trend toward community and cour- tesy policing has been described as a national police accountability phenomenon, influenc- ing many local police departments across the United States (Walker and Archbold 2019). We define courtesy policing as an approach where officers engage civilians with respect, friendliness, and cordiality. The local police department in this study also expressed a commitment to police accountability, cour- tesy policing, and community policing. Even in one of the department’s most aggressive

policing units, the Gang Suppression Team (GST), officers expressed that community policing, politeness, and respect were central to their crime prevention work.

Previous research has examined the role of race in stop-and-frisk and other forms of aggressive policing, but questions remain about the day-to-day interactions that take place between officers and criminalized pop- ulations. This concern is especially pertinent in an era of police accountability (Kahn et al. 2017), wherein police relations with people of color demonstrate a pattern of racial bias and racial inequality (Brunson 2015; Epp et al. 2014; Muñiz 2015; Rios 2011, 2017; Vitale 2017), including accusations of racial profil- ing, police abuse, and unjustified police kill- ings (Cobbina 2019). Researchers have discussed a need for studies on contextual and situational cues during police stops of racial- ized civilians (Maskaly 2012). The aim of our study is to understand the contradiction between modern police departments’ attempts to establish legitimacy and the hegemonic practice of the investigatory stop.

This article utilizes police ride-alongs, community ethnography, and field interview data drawn from a predominantly Latinx community with a large gang presence. Spe- cifically, we observed a police gang unit and gang-associated individuals to gain insight on the interactional processes and conditions that create conflict between criminalized popula- tions and officers charged with policing them. This particular gang unit relied heavily on stop-and-frisk in its attempt to gather infor- mation and prevent crime among gang- associated civilians.1

We found that officers simultaneously engaged in behaviors adopted from various policing models when interacting with gang- associated Latinos. Officers maneuvered between courtesy policing and punitive polic- ing during individual police stops: a phenom- enon we call “legitimacy policing.” We define legitimacy policing as a continuum where vari- ous policing models converge during the pro- cess of police–citizen interactions. Legitimacy policing is a system of actions in which offic- ers combine punitive and courtesy strategies to

 

 

60 American Sociological Review 85(1)

reach a desired interactional outcome. In this study, officers typically used the language of trust-building as a rationale for, and an oppor- tunity to, engage in racialized surveillance of Latino civilians in order to collect information about them. When stopped Latinos failed to provide information or follow commands, officers responded with aggressive policing, especially when compliance was perceived to be missing, eroding what limited relational gains might have resulted from a courteous encounter. Previous scholarship has suggested a contradiction exists between officer inten- tions and institutionalized practices (Epp et al. 2014), but our data indicate that this contradic- tion runs deeper still, to competing orientations occurring within the police–civilian interac- tional process.

PoLICInG ModeLS And CRIMInALIzed CoMMunItIeS Community Policing

In response to public and political pressure to curb racial profiling and racial violence, some police departments have adopted community policing models that prioritize relationship- building with community members (Brunson et al. 2015; Forman 2004; Schafer, Huebner, and Bynum 2003). One study found that by 2013, 90 percent of all police departments in the United States, serving a population of more than 25,000 people, had adopted com- munity policing in their mission statements (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 2015). Skogan and Hartnett (1997) describe community policing as an organiza- tional strategy that redefines the goals of local police departments to respond to community needs and requests. Key features of a commu- nity policing approach are departmental orien- tations toward problem-solving, collaboration with local community members in defining problems to be addressed by law enforcement, and active relationship cultivation with busi- ness and neighborhood leaders. In an ideal community policing environment, depart- ments are organizationally decentralized and

patrols are oriented to respond to citizen demands, thus creating two-way communica- tion between police and the public (Skogan et al. 1999).

The simultaneous use of community polic- ing and punitive techniques may be creating an environment that prevents community– police relations from improving. Researchers have found that departments implement com- munity policing in inconsistent ways (Gascón and Roussell 2019; Kearns 2017). One study showed that recent community policing efforts reproduced racial conflict between officers and citizens in the inner city (Gascón and Roussell 2019). Dubber (2000:840) argues that populations rendered a problem, such as the gang-associated individuals in this study, are not viewed as constituents of the community the police serve; instead, “the identification and incapacitation of dangerous deviants thus serves to maintain the commu- nity’s existence, not by preventing future offenses, but by redefining the community in stark contradistinction to the deviant.” Stuart (2016) provides another example of the limi- tations in community policing when com- bined with aggressive policing; he finds that officers attempt to implement therapeutic practices in their policing approach but do so through punitive techniques.

Procedural Justice

Tyler (2004) argues that enhancing commu- nity policing has the potential to improve police–community relations and reduce crime; the premise being that if people feel the system treats them with respect, they might respond more positively toward police (Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler 2003, 2005). In this vein, procedural justice is a policing strategy aimed at improving citizen percep- tions of police legitimacy (Tyler 1988, 2003). The procedural justice approach posits that citizen perceptions of police legitimacy are influenced primarily by whether the proce- dure of a police encounter is considered fair, rather than the perceived fairness of the out- come (Tyler 1988). This approach often over- laps with community policing models where

 

 

Rios et al. 61

officers attempt to build familiarity and trust with community members to improve their legitimacy in the community. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice and a vast number of local police departments have called for and implemented reforms aimed at improving community–police relations (Her- bert, Beckett, and Stuart 2017).2 Some schol- ars argue that trust-building techniques could help improve police–community relations and reduce crime even when combined with the practice of stop-and-frisk (White and Fradella 2016).

Armaline, Vera Sanchez, and Correia (2014) question the procedural justice model, arguing that although it encourages courtesy between citizens and police, people of color continue to perceive policing as negative and degrading. In an interview study with Black youths, Gau and Brunson (2010) found that punitive policing strategies like stop-and- frisk have negative implications for police legitimacy and crime control efforts because they compromise people’s perceptions of pro- cedural justice. This persistent negative regard for police—even after the adoption of procedural justice strategies—indicates that stopped individuals perceive a disconnect and continue to regard the practice, if not the polite officer, as racist (Epp et al. 2014).

In a study analyzing the policing of house- less populations, Stuart (2016) examined the severe lack of social services and the aggres- sive policing practices designed to rehabilitate this population. Stuart (2016) describes this form of managing the poor as “therapeutic policing,” a tactic based on the assumption that policing should address citizens as individually pathological. If utilized in tandem with punitive policing strategies, community policing strate- gies such as those noted by Stuart (2016) may actually undermine rapport and trust between law enforcement and the community.

Legitimacy Policing and Contemporary Policing Models

Herbert and colleagues (2017) identify three contemporary policing models: aggressive patrol, harm reduction, and coercive patrol.

Aggressive patrol is a dominant form of policing in the United States, as seen through the legacy programs of intense surveillance (Harcourt 1998); police violence and stop- and-frisk strategies (Kramer and Remster 2018; Rios 2011; Simmons 2014); big data policing (Brayne 2017); aggressive enforce- ment of minor crimes among the poor (Wac- quant 2009); criminalizing poverty through fines, fees, and costs (Harris 2016); and intru- sion and arrest as deterrence (Parenti 2003). Other scholars describe this aggressive patrol as the new policing model (Fagan et al. 2016), arguing that it grants law enforcement broad powers to control and intervene in the lives of marginalized populations and has had detrimental impacts on communities subju- gated on the basis of race and class (Soss and Weaver 2017).

The harm reduction model attempts to build trust, promote community ties, and mini- mize contentious relationships with community members. Procedural justice and community policing overlap with this model. The goal of the harm reduction model is to create mutual understanding and genuine coalitions with community members in order to address crime. This approach, also similar to a due process model, attempts to minimize the coer- cive power of law enforcement by focusing on protecting the dignity of civilians (Packer 1968).

The coercive patrol model, exemplified by Stuart’s (2016) notion of therapeutic policing, compels subjects to engage in personal reform through punitive treatment and the threat of arrest. The coercive nature of this type of police–citizen relationship undermines broader reparative efforts as officers often resort to force or arrest if a civilian falls short of expec- tations of personal reform. Stuart provides insight on how this coercive patrol model serves as a modern policing project aimed at rehabilitating and reforming criminalized pop- ulations through punitive measures.

Key Concepts: Mens Rea Defenses: Involuntary Intoxication And Provocation Doctrine

/in /by

: In a narrative format for the Complete section, construct one essay which addresses the following points: The minimum requirements for Completes are four (5) scholarly sources including at least one peer reviewed journal article (one published within the last seven years). I expect perfect APA technique and a minimum of 1,700 words of content overall, not including the references section.

Key Concepts: mens rea defenses: involuntary intoxication and provocation doctrine

Capstone Cases: Montana v. Egelhoff, Carter v. State, Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991).

The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of  mens rea defenses, specifically the involuntary intoxication and provocation doctrin­­­­e and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of Montana v. Egelhoff, Carter v. State, Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, and Girouard v. State. Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.

  • In the Capstone case of Montana v. Egelhoff, on July 1992, while camping out in the Yaak region of northwestern Montana, Respondent Egelhoff made friends with Roberta Pavola and John Christenson. On Sunday, July 12, the three spent much of the day and evening drinking, in bars and at a private party. At about midnight that night, officers of the Lincoln County, Montana, sheriff’s department, responding to reports of a possible drunk driver, discovered Christenson’s station wagon stuck in a ditch along U.S. Highway 2. In the front seat were Pavola and Christenson, each dead from a single gunshot to the head. In the rear of the car lay Egelhoff, alive and yelling obscenities. His blood-alcohol content measured .36 percent over one hour later. After being charged with two counts of homicide, Engelhoff attempted to assert an intoxication defense, but this was denied by the trial court. How does a claim that (a) an intoxicated defendant should not be held responsible for his or her criminal activity because of the inability to form the requisite mens rea for a specific crime differ from the claim that (b) an intoxicated defendant should be excused because he or she had lowered inhibitions and impaired judgment as a consequence of ingesting alcohol?
  • Do both claims carry the same moral weight?
  • Do you believe that, as a matter of fundamental due process rights, a defendant should be given the opportunity to present “all relevant evidence to rebut the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged”? Why or why not?
  • Read the Court’s opinion in Carter v. State, 710 So. 2d 110 (Fla. App. 1998). Based on this opinion, explain why involuntary intoxication is treated differently from voluntary intoxication as a criminal defense.
  • In the Capstone case of Commonwealth v. Schnopps, on October 13, 1979, Marilyn R. Schnopps was fatally shot by her estranged husband George A. Schnopps. A jury convicted Schnopps of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Schnopps claims that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Schnopps claimed that he was provoked into killing his wife after learning of her marital infidelity. Were the wife’s comments so shocking as to be tantamount to the defendant’s actually catching her in an adulterous act with her lover?
  • What are the implications of extending the provocation doctrine in infidelity cases from actually witnessing a spouse committing adultery to learning about it verbally?
  • Read the two other “provocation” cases in your textbook—People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991)—where defendants asserted victim provocation as mitigation against homicide charges. What conditions or circumstances do the courts identify as being adequate enough to constitute possible reduced charges in homicide cases?