Peel

KEITH L WILLIAMSInspector in the Metropolitan Police Department

PEEL'S PRINCIPLES AND THEIRACCEPTANCE BY AMERICANPOLICE: ENDING 175 YEARS OFREINVENTION

Since the inception of modem policing in 1829, the policing st>'Iesof Britain and the United States have run incongruent courses.While the Metropolitan Police Department of London has stayedtrue to the principles first articulated by Sir Robert Peel Americanpolicing has undergone several sweeping changes in the admin-istration of service. These reinventions ha\e hampered theestablishment of a true ideology of police service in America.

Through a comparative historical overview of these polic-ing models, this article will strive to explain the reason behindthe lack of acceptance of Peel's original nine principles bypolice in America. Further discussion will focus on the currentacceptance of these principles by many police agencies withinthe United States in their community policing missions and askwhat might have been had the Peelian \irtues been acceptedfrom the beginning.

IntroductionIn 1829, after much debate, the London Metropolitan Police Actofficially sanctioned a new arm of government. This entity wasan innovative approach to social control in that it provided for afull-time presence of uniformed personnel in communities estab-lished to prevent crime and disorder.^ Many would agree that thiswas the dawning of the creation of the modem police and SirRobert Peel was credited with its conception.

America, during the same period, was faced with some of thesame issues as London was but was somewhat slower to reactwith police presence. However, the first agencies were estab-lished in the 1830s. There is no debate that the forces of Londonand the United States were similar in some respects and dramat-ically different in others; this article will hopefully generatediscussion about what could have been if Peel's principles wereaccepted in toto and applied to the police in America at the timeof their inception. This article will attempt to discern the reasonsbehind the United States' failure, or refusal, to accept, in whole,the Peelian principles.

The Police Joumal Volume 76 (2003) 97

The first section of this writing will be an historic overviewof the establishment of PeePs police, the principles on whichthey were derived and the effect that their formation had onsociety. Second, an historical view of the police in the UnitedStates will be presented for comparative purposes. During thecourse of this article several questions will be addressed.

Did the fact that obstacles and differences arose in theformulation of American police create the environment wherethe United States failed, or refused, to accept the Peelian virtues?What could have been, then, had they been accepted? Wouldthere have been a need for a Reform Era? Would the Pro-fessional Era then be an even more dramatic removal from theoriginal concept of policing? Have we, in the United States, goneback to a Peelian-like version of policing with communitypolicing objectives? If we hadn't lost those 175 years, what sortof evolution could have occurred in policing? Finally, can we, asAmericans, even accept the Peelian Principles, given our dis-jointed array of police agencies and mandates?

HistoryIn 1829, after almost 50 years of debate following the GordonRiots in 1780, Parliament passed the London MetropolitanPolice Act. The passing of this act, formulated by Sir RobertPeel, established a full-time, uniformed police force for the cityof London.- This force was created for the purpose of preventionof crime, which was a dramatic departure from the private thief-takers and constable-watch systems that preceded this era. Thepolice were also purposefully structured to be different from themilitary in their objectives and use of force.

The social forces at work in the late 1700s and early 1800s inEngland included a high rate of population growth in the cities,particularly in London, as industrialisation flourished. Becauseof this sudden growth, there was a breakdown in social control,characterised by disorder, crime, riots and public health issues.These problems, along with the influx of people to the cities,caused concern to the ruling and middle classes, who realised thesystem of constable-watch could not handle the problems effec-tively.- An alternative solution to dealing with these societalproblems needed to be identified and constructed in order toprovide protection and safety.

One alternative that was attempted was to utilise the militaryor militia to quell the riots. Unfortunately, it was not themilitary's objective to provide this sort of protection and theywere too forceful in their handling of many of the protests.

98 The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003)

Increasing the number of constables was also attempted, but wasonly a temporary solution to a long-term problem."^

What finally ai'ose was a government-funded, quasi-militaryand continuous structure of patrolling the neighbourhoods withthe focus on preventing crime and disorder. The estabhshment ofthe police in London was not without its detractors and it tookthe work of some of the brightest minds, plus the increased fearof a flourishing criminal element, to establish the need withmEngland. Jeremy Bentham, Henry and John Fielding and othersadvocated the creation of this organisation for the purposes ofpreventing crime.' It took the work of Peel, Britain's HomeSecretary, to bring these thoughts and philosophies into a legalframework to convince Parliament of the desperate need for thisnew arm of the government.

The very fact that Britain needed to be convinced, even inthe face of rising crime, shows how much careful considerationmust have been put into the mandate of the police at this time.Legislators and citizens were worried that the establishment of a'standing army' of uniformed police would produce a means forthe government to have a potential despot-like control over thecitizenry.^ Government officials themselves were concemed bythe twin fears of 'governmental expense and power\^

The sanctioning of the Home Office surely led to the successof the establishment of the police in London. As an agency of thenational government there was an ability to set high personnelstandards and control the work of the members of the force. Theinsulation of the commissioners who led the force from thepeople it actually policed resulted in some early resistance, buteventually this gave way to a legacy of professionalism andcivility.^ The police had established an impersonal authorityderived not from the local communities standards, but from legalpowers and restraints.*^

This impersonal authority was analogous to the formalinstitutional power that was granted to the police by the nationalgovernment, in particular the Home Office. The formality of theposition led to high levels of discipline and conduct by theofficers. One quote from the time likened the London policeofficer to an 'institution rather than a man\'^

Several other factors also played a role in determining theearly course of action for the police. Peel recruited his officersfrom outside the City to prevent any form of corruption fromtaking hold. The force was assigned specific areas of patrol orbeats to ensure continuity. Further, structure was borrowed fromthe military to provide a hierarchical chain of command for

The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003) 99

coordination and control.'^ What led to the success of the policechiefly were the nine principles that Peel established as theguiding force for the members of the organisation. This philo-sophical underpinning meant that there was a clear mission inmind for the police and reduced the ambiguity in the role that thepolice would play in society.

PeeTs thinking surrounding the formation of the Metropoli-tan Police was reduced to the following nine principles:

(1) the basic mission for which the police exist is to preventcrime and disorder;

(2) the ability of the police to perform their duties isdependent upon public approval of police actions;

(3) police must secure the willing cooperation of the publicin voluntary observance of the law to be able to secureand maintain the respect of the public;

(4) the degree of cooperation of the public that can besecured diminishes proportionally to the necessity of theuse of physical force;

(5) police seek and preserve public favour not by catering topublic opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absoluteimpartial service to the law;

(6) police use physical force to the extent necessary tosecure observance of the law or to restore order onlywhen the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning isfound to be insufficient;

(7) police, at all times, should maintain a relationship withthe public that gives reality to the historic tradition thatthe police are the public and the public are the police; thepolice being only members of the public who are paid togive full-time attention to duties which are incumbent onevery citizen in the interests of community welfare andexistence;

(8) police should always direct their action strictly towardstheir functions and never appear to usuip the powers ofthe judiciary;

(9) the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime anddisorder, not the visible evidence of police action indealing with it.

With these principles. Peel laid the framework for one of themost important creations in law enforcement history. More than175 years later, the guiding principles formulated in 1829 arestill at the forefront of many police agencies' mission statementsworldwide, as will be illustrated later.

100 The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003)

American leaders knew a good thing when they saw it and,when faced with similar elements of social disorder, ^borrowed^some of the fundamental tenets of the London police. The earlyAmerican police forces modelled themselves after the Londonpolice force, but not in its entirety. Deployment for preventivepatrol carried over and was supposed to be the major facet forthe US police.'- Apart from a few other parallels, such as asimilar military-model structure and beat patrols, the policeforces were dissimilar in all respects.

Perhaps the most important difference was that the Americanpolice agencies found themselves to be reflective of the commu-nities that they policed. They were reliant, therefore, on personalauthority for legitimacy. Not only were the officers drawn fromthe exact communities they patrolled but, contrary to the Londonmodel, the American officers were encouraged to respect theinformal expectations of the area. The American officers,embodied by the New York City police, conformed with the pre-existing democratic ideals of the government.'"^

While the ideals espoused were representative of the Amer-ican form of government, they had catastrophic impacts on theconduct of the police. Instead of being disciplined and separatefrom the political machine, the police in this era were theembodiment of corruption and avarice. The local politiciansdirectly controlled the police departments, to the extent thatshould an incumbent lose an election the entire force would bereplaced with a faction from the winning party.'"^ There were noreal guiding principles for the American police to follow, whichled to ambiguity in their roles and they became the socialrepairmen of the cities.

The local political machines guided the American police inthis era and were therefore more responsive to the communities:while a laudable mission theoretically, what it meant was that thepolice were expected to be social servants. Police during this erasupervised elections,''"^ enforced health regulations, operatedambulances and housed the homeless.'^ These functions were adramatic departure from the ideals of preventing crime as aforemost objective for the police.

The fact that the local politicians appomted all police officersto the job meant that there was a complete lack of formal trainingand personnel standards. Brutality and corruption were particularlyrampant among American officers because this informal institu-tional power meant that the officers had to rely on their personalauthority to accomplish their mission. This lack of institutionalpower led to a lack of institutional restraints, which, paradoxically.

The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003) iOl

meant that the American policeman ended up with more power,whether legitimate or not, than his London counterpart.^^

In all, the police of the 1800s in America were seen, rightfullyso, as the arm of the local politicians; they were corrupt, brutal,disorganised and inconsistent in application of law and duty. Whilethey had broad discretion, they lacked the knowledge and abilityto establish themselves as legitimate law enforcement profession-als, as envisaged by Peel. What followed, in the early 1900s, wasa full-scale attack on the make-up and organisation of all localgovernment factions, with the focus of reforming the police in theforefront. It was natural, that the police, being the most con-spicuous arm of the local political bosses, would be one of themost visible targets of the reformers.

It is acknowledged that there was a Reform Era that changedthe culture of government and, specifically, the police operationwithin it in the United States. What is most perplexing is thatthese reforms moved the police away from the idea that theyshould be 'in tune' with the communities they served. The focusof reform was to institutionalise efficiency, and create a bureau-cratic hierarchy and management structure as tools for crimedetection instead of crime prevention. This period evolved intothe Professional Era of policing, where the police further dis-tanced themselves from the general population and looked forstrict rules and accountability structures to instil discipline intothe police. The reform was a reaction to perceived ills within thepolice and society's response to them.

Let us then compare concisely the differences in the policeideologies, London v America, from their inception points:

London America

Nationally operatedCentralisedImpersonal authority derived

from laws

Low discretionHigh institutional powerHigh restraintHigh personnel standards and

trainingNot reflective of communityCivil and professionalDeployed for prevention

Locally controlledDecentralisedPersonal authority derived

from self and politicalmachines

High discretionLow institutional powerLow restraintNon-existent standards

Reflective of communityBrutal and corruptSocial servants


The theory that the London force was essentially policing ahomogeneous society with widely shared expectations which ledto their stability and acceptance is given some credence as areason for their success. Conversely, the American forceps insta-bility was the result of a heterogeneous society with few sharedexpectations.'^ This theory, at least from the American per-spective, can be rejected by contemplating Alexis de Tocque-ville's observations of American life during this same period:

The observations I have made here on events may also beapplied to opinions. Two things are surprising in the UnitedStates: the mutability of the greater part of human actions,and the singular stability of certain principles. Men are inconstant motion; the mind of man appears almost unmoved.When once an opinion has spread over the country andstruck root there, it would seem that no power on earth isstrong enough to eradicate it. In the United States, generalprinciples in religion, philosophy, nwralit}\ and even politics,do not ran\ ov at least are only modified by a hidden andoften imperceptible process: even the grossest prejudices areobliterated with incredible slowness, amidst the continualfriction of men and things.'^ (Emphasis added)

Regardless of the theoretical viewpoint, it is still an interestingdichotomy that the American police officer had less training, wasmore brutal and had less legitimate authority, yet had morepower and higher discretion than a London officer who was morecivil and professional, had higher restraint and was legitimisedby the national government. Perhaps this is reflective of thedichotomy between the nations at the time; both were democraticnations, yet Great Britain was still ruled by an aristocratic classstructure, while the United States imparted higher ideals andafforded the vote to more individuals.

What is called the central paradox of policing by historianRoger Lane explains this phenomenon:

The more highly centralized, bureaucratic and essentiallyundemocratic nature of the police administration in Londonproduced a more professional level of police work than didthe structurally more democratic form of police administra-tion in the United States. Thus, undemocratic means pro-duced results that were more consistent with the principles ofdemocracy - fair and equal treatment of all people.-*^

The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003) 103

What Might Have BeenAn interesting line of reasoning developed from the precedingsections would be to label the American police, who were from ahighly democratic belief structure, as more oppressive than theundemocratic system of the London Metropolitan Police.Oppression is defined as, 'Exercising power arbitrarily and oftenunjustly; tyrannical'.^' While they have never been labelled assuch, the American police's culture of corruption and brutalstreet-comer justice would lead one to believe that they wieldedtheir power over citizens with impunity in the early years of theirformation. From every historical vantage point it is clear that theAmerican police were oppressive in their exercising of powerand, at times, tyrannical in their use of discretion to carry out thegoals of the political machines. The blatant use of police as aninstrument of urban machine politics created the view that theywere not only corrupt, but dumb and brutal as well."

The reason this is so important is that this is the very failingthat Great Britain was trying to avoid when setting up theirpolice force. Peel extolled anti-oppressive ideals in many of hisnine principles. What follows is that, for some reason, the UnitedStates neglected to recognise the ability of the police to be anoppressive force, whether cross-culturally, racially, or in general.This failure to accept the terms of Peel's principles whendevising American police agencies led to the need for reform anda reinvention of the police role in society, effectively negatingmore than 50 years of social effort.

If the tenets of PeeKs Metropolitan Police Act had been putinto place within the American police forces, many of theproblems that led to the reforms would have been averted. Forinstance, the same social phenomenon was being experienced onboth sides of the ocean during the industrial era; more working-class people were moving to the cities. Peel and London Metro-politan Police recruited members from outside the cities to instil'professional detachment from the citizen's' and 'professionalimpartiality'. American police leaders did just the opposite,recruiting and appointing from within the local establishment,which quickly led to dependence on the politicians and even-tually to corruption.--^ The leaders of policing in the UnitedStates had just as easy access to the pool of candidates as in theLondon Model of recruiting yet failed to recognise its qualities,thus creating an environment for corruption that still carries overtoday.

Use of force is also an area where the American policequickly overran their legitimacy. While the 'Bobbies' carried

104 The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

truncheons only, the American police quickly became enam-oured with firearms and by the late 1800s began issuing them totheir officers officially.-^ Though granted the ability to utilisedeadly force, many agencies did not create clear policies for theuse of firearms until the mid-1900s, Conversely, police inLondon started with a principle regarding the use of force andare still not armed, except in extreme circumstances. Thisprinciple stated, Tolice use physical force to the extent neces-sary to secure observance of the law or to restore order onlywhen the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found tobe insufficient/ As late as the 1960s, police use of force inAmerica was unregulated.-'' Even in recent years, police inAmerica have found that they needed to standardise or revamptheir use-of-force policies after complaints of abuse.

Examining these two elements of policing shows that accep-tance of the Peelian virtues of restraint and civility from theonset would have counteracted the need for reform in Americanpolicing, since the police would have already been acting inaccordance with the standards that the reformers were advocat-ing.

What then was the fear of translating the Enslish version ofpolicing into American culture? Was America so democratic thatit did not wish to accept a national police force? Did the feelingof colonialism still have a strong hold on America, leading it tofeel that the police were too 'English'? Did the Americans havesuch distrust in institutions that they could not allow the police tobecome an institution?

Perhaps all of these factors, and many others, played a role increating the police as a highly discretionary, yet informallysanctioned organisation. What comes to mind is another of DeTocqueville's observations that Americans empowered theirelected officials with great discretion since they elected them andcould remove them if they were dissatisfied. The police, directlyanswering to the elected officials, were, by default, guided bybroad public opinion instead of formal limitations on theirpersonal power.'^ The police were reflective more of a man thanan institution, but this fact meant that they represented the areasthey policed rather than the public good.-''

The Professional Era was a natural evolution from theReform Era. Led by innovators such as August Vollmer ofBerkeley, California, the police began separating politics fromadministration in the development of the new police style. Theorganisations began instituting formal training for recruits andmembers of the force, along with standards required for entry

The Police Joumal Volume 76 (2003) 105

into the job, something that the London force had establishedfrom the outset. As time progressed, civil service statutes man-dated certain requirements of the police and their organisations.In fact, reformists such as VoUmer took the civil service mandateof merit, which focused primarily on how successful an agencywas in removing political influence from appointments andpromotions, and capitalised on it. His feeling towards merit,more in line with competence and performance of members of apolice force, further ingrained the legitimacy that the policegarnered from the stakeholders they served.^^

Chiefs were now seen as capable of running the departmentswithout political influence and were given expanded powers torespond to a burgeoning crime problem. In order to accomplishthis the agencies found that they needed to develop a system ofcentralised command structure, another of PeeFs perspectivesthat was finally gaining credibility in America. In order tofacilitate this system, the lines of accountability previouslydrawn on political boundaries had to be redrawn for efficiencyand accountability to the agency, as opposed to the ward boss.The command structure, in most instances, was similar to therank structure of the military, as was London's, which at the timewas seen as a model for efficiency and accountability. This wasso much the case that many of the new ^professional' chiefs weredrawn from the ranks of the military officers.-^

While much of the reform of policing can be traced toseveral key thinkers, such as Vollmer, the transformation occur-red at the same time as the reforming of many public and privateindustries, so the climate was ripe for the needed changes andacceptance of new ideas, in the name of progress, was endemic.Stability was acquired by virtue of the removal of the over-bearing political machines and the ensuing chaos that a change inparty would cause. Professionalism was viewed as organisationalefficiency and crime fighting."^^

Ironically, some of the latter improvements, which are reflec-tive of Peelian virtues, can still be seen in practice today, such asa quasi-military, bureaucratic command structure, but many feelthat this may be to the detriment of reaching out to the main-stream issues of American social problems. The Professional Eraof American policing was regarded as a distancing from thepublic by the police and a reduction in police-communityrelations that had an impact on how the police role in society wasviewed.

The reforms and professionalisation of the police in Americawere not in contrast to Peel's vision and subsequent principles,


which were a foundation for establishing the police as both a lawenforcement power, as well as a preventive social control mecha-nism. It is interesting that it took some 100 years for some of theideals to be accepted in America. The acceptance of some of theprinciples and the weaving of those doctrines into Americanpolice culture shows how forward-thinking Peel was and proves,on some level, that, had they been accepted earlier, many of thereconstitutions that the police have gone through in Americacould have been avoided.

Imagine how progressive and sophisticated policing inAmerica could have been if it wasn't constantly reinventingitself every 50 years or so. Would there have been a need for areform period that espoused the virtues of efficiency? Perhaps,what the Reform and Professionalism Eras established in Amer-ica was that the police now considered their work as a vocation,as the Metropolitan Police of London had from the beginning.

How Close Are We to Peel Now?With the advent of community policing, American police deter-mined that the most prudent way to acquire legitimacy andauthority would be to re-establish themselves as partners withthe community they serve. While caution is taken to avoid thepitfalls of earlier community policing in the political era,modem-day police agencies have attempted to establish commu-nity policing as a new philosophy. This new version of policingis based on five elements for developing programmes that:

(1) foster a commitment to crime prevention;(2) allow for public scrutiny of the police;(3) hold the actions of the police accountable to the public;(4) customise the police service; and(5) develop community organisation/^'

Ironically, three out of the five elements directly reflect theprinciples championed by Peel in 1829.

Does this 'philosophy^ mean that American policing hasfinally adopted the Peelian set of principles with which todetermine the purpose of the police? One of the most effectivemeans of establishing whether American policing was finallyaccepting the Peelian principles would be to examine missionstatements of police agencies to determine if they have someform of the Peel principles or if the expectations voiced in thestatements were similar.

Chart A.I (see Appendix) is a comparison of the five largeUS municipal police departments, illustrating how much their

The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003) 107

mission statements borrow from Peel's nine principles (similarwording and/or parallel attitudes are highlighted). As shown inthe chart, each of these agencies clearly has mirrored some or allof Peers tenets in establishing its own guiding principles. TheLos Angeles Police Department not only includes two of Peel'svalues in its mission statement, but its Core Values and Prin-ciples include every single one of Peel's virtuous principles (seeChart A.2, Appendix)! Specifically, the LAPD utihses the fol-lowing principles taken directly, almost word for word, from

^2

LAPD

Crime Prevention Top Priority^The basic mission for whichthe police exist is to preventcrime and disorder as an alter-native to repression by militaryforce and severity of legal pun-ishment. When the police failto prevent crime, it becomesimportant to apprehend theperson responsible for thecrime and gather all evidencethat might be used in a sub-sequent trial.

Public Approbation of PoliceThe ability of the police toperform their duties is depend-ent upon public approval ofpolice existence, actions,behavior, and the ability of thepolice to secure and maintainpublic respect

Voluntary Law ObservanceThe police must secure thewilling cooperation of the pub-lic in voluntary observance ofthe law in order to be able tosecure and maintain therespect and approval of thepublic.

PEEL

The basic mission for whichthe police exist is to preventcrime and disorder.

The ability of the police toperform their duties is depend-ent upon public approval ofpolice actions.

Police must secure the willingcooperation of the public involuntary observance of thelaw to be able to secure andmaintain the respect of thepublic.


Public CooperationThe degree of public coopera-tion that can be secured dimin-ishes, proportionately, thenecessity for the use of phys-ical force and compulsion inachieving police objectives.

Impartial FriendlyEnforcementThe police seek and preservepublic favour, not by cateringto public opinion, but by con-stantly demonstrating abso-lutely impartial service to thelaw without regard to the jus-tice or injustice of the sub-stance of individual laws; byreadily offering individualservice and friendship to allmembers of society withoutregard to their race or socialstanding; by the ready exerciseof courtesy and friendly goodhumor; and by readily offeringindividual sacrifice in protect-ing and preserving life.

Minimum Use of ForceThe police should use physicalforce to the extent necessary tosecure observance of the lawor to restore order when theexercise of persuasion, advice,and waming is found to beinsufficient to achieve policeobjectives; and police shoulduse only the reasonableamount of physical forcewhich is necessary on any par-ticular occasion for achievinga police objective.

The degree of cooperation ofthe public that can be secureddiminishes proportionately tothe necessity of the use ofphysical force.

Police seek and preserve pub-lic favour not by catering topublic opinion but by con-stantly demonstrating absoluteimpartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to theextent necessary to secureobservance of the law or torestore order only when theexercise of persuasion, adviceand waming is found to beinsufficient.

The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003) 109

Public Are the PoliceThe police at all times shouldmaintain a relationship withthe public that gives reality tothe historic tradition that thepoHce are the public and thatthe public are the police; thepolice are the only members ofthe public who are paid to givefull-time attention to dutieswhich are incumbent on everycitizen in the interest of com-munity welfare.

Limit of Police PowerThe police should alwaysdirect their actions strictlytoward their functions andnever appear to usurp the pow-ers of the judiciary by aveng-ing individuals or the state, orauthoritatively judging guilt orpunishing the guilty.

Test of Police EffectivenessThe test of police effectivenessis the absence of crime and thepresence of public order. It isnot the evidence of policeaction in dealing with crimeand disorder.

Police, at all times, shouldmaintain a relationship withthe public that gives realityto the historic tradition thatthe police are the public andthe public are the police; thepolice being only members ofthe public who are paid to givefull-time attention to neigh-bourhood, they can effectivelyreduce crime.

Police should always directtheir action strictly towardstheir functions and neverappear to usurp the powers ofthe judiciary.

The test of police efficiency isthe absence of crime and dis-order, not the visible evidenceof police action in dealing withit.

ConclusionDoes the fact that one of the largest and, arguably, mostprogressive police agencies in America has accepted the Peelianprinciples mean that American policing has finally come torecognise the virtue of these values? Doesn't the additionalevidence from the other four major municipal agencies in thecountry lend credence to the fact that these guiding rules havefinally become part of American policing, where they shouldhave been from the outset?

As a practitioner in policing, it is my opinion that one doesnot have to accept the notion of a nationally controlled policeagency to accept the virtues of the Peelian principles. The merefact that over 175 years later, these precepts that guided the


formation of modern policing are still viable today speaksvolumes to the brilliance of the Victorian era reformers whostruck out into new territory and established a governmentalbranch whose main goal was to prevent crime and protect thecitizens of a nation from themselves. It is truly a shame thatAmerica did not follow suit entirely instead of selectivelyimplementing, unsuccessfully at that, these principles.

Whether you believe that the police were established forsocial control or for the task of crime prevention, you cannotargue about the durability of PeeKs established principles andtheir formidable mission of survival over almost two centuriesand many social climate changes. It would be all too easy to takePeel's ideologies for granted since they have been a part of thefoundation of police thinking for so long. This should not be thecase; these tenets are as pure and virtuous now as they were in1829 and this can be proven by their acceptance in today'sculture as guiding doctrines in the new world of policing.

Appendix

Chart A.I Comparison of five large Metropolitan PoliceDepartments' mission statements

Los Angeles Police DepartmentIt is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department tosafeguard the lives and property of the people we serve, toreduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance publicsafety while working with the diverse communities to improvetheir quality of life. Our mandate is to do so with honor andintegrity, while at all times conducting ourselves with the highestethical standards to maintain public confidence.

Chicago Police DepartmentThe importance of the police-community partnership is reflectedin the Police Department's Mission Statement:

The Chicago Police Department, as part of, and empoweredby the community^ is committed to protect the lives, propertyand rights of all people, to maintain order, and to enforce thelaw impartially. We will provide quality police services inpartnership with other members of the community. To fulfillour mission, we will strive to attain the highest degree ofethical behavior and professional conduct at all times.

The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003)

Dallas Police DepartmentThe Police Department, in serving the people of Dallas, strives toreduce crime and provide a safe city by:

• Recognizing that its goal is to help people and provideassistance at every opportunity;

• Providing preventive, investigative, and enforcement ser-vices;

• Increasing citizen satisfaction with public safety andobtaining convnunity cooperation through the Depart-ment's training, skills, and efforts; and

• Realizing that the Police Department alone cannot controlcrime, but must act in concert with the community and therest of the Criminal Justice System.

In achieving this mission, the men and women of the DallasPolice Department will conduct themselves in an ethicalmanner. They will:

• Respect and protect the rights of citizens as determined bythe law:

• Treat citizens and their fellow employees courteously andwith the same amount of dignity with which they expect tobe treated themselves;

• Be examples of honesty and integrity in their professionaland personal lives, thereby earning the public trust\

• Perform their duties with the knowledge that protection ofthe lives and property^ of all citizens is their primary duty;and

• Comply with the spirit and letter of the Code of Con-duct.

Washington, DC Metropolitan Police DepartmentThe mission of the Metropolitan Police Department is to preventcrime and the fear of crime, as we work with others to build safeand healthy communities throughout the District of Columbia.

New York City Police Department• To protect life and property, reduce crinie\ improve the

quality of life while dealing with the citizens of this citywith courtesy, professionalism, and respect,

• Direct, coordinate and control the efforts of seven patrolboroughs and the Special Operations Division.

• Provide sufficient uniformed patrol officers to respond toemergencies, minimize harm, and maximize publicsafety.

112 The Police Joumal Volume 76 (2003)

• Deploy resources to effectively combat crime and respondto community needs for police senices.

• Observe and evaluate performance, equipment and train-ing of field personnel.

Chart A.2 LAPD Core Values and Principles

Core Values

Service to Our CommunitiesWe are dedicated to enhancing public safety and reducing thefear and the incidence of crime. People in our communities areour most important customers. Our motto To Protect and toServe' is not just a slogan - it is our way of life. We will work inpartnership with the people in our communities and do our best,within the law, to solve community problems that effect publicsafety. We value the great diversity of people in both ourresidential and business communities and serve all with equaldedication.

Principles

Reverence for the LawWe have been given the honor and privilege of enforcing thelaw. We must always exercise integrity in the use of the powerand authority that have been given to us by the people. Ourpersonal and professional behavior should be a model for all tofollow. We will obey and support the letter and spirit of thelaw.

Commitment to LeadershipWe believe the Los Angeles Police Department should be aleader in law enforcement. We also believe that each individualneeds to be a leader in his or her area of responsibility. Makingsure that our values become part of our day-to-day work life isour mandate. We must each work to ensure that our co-workers,our professional colleagues, and our communities have thehighest respect for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Integrity in All We Say and DoIntegrity is our standard. We are proud of our profession and willconduct ourselves in a manner that merits the respect of allpeople. We will demonstrate honest, ethical behavior in all ourinteractions. Our actions will match our words. We must havethe courage to stand up for our beliefs and do what is right.

The Police Joumal, Volume 76 (2003) US

Throughout the ranks, the Los Angeles Police Department has along history of integrity and freedom from corruption. Uphold-ing this proud tradition is a challenge we must all continue tomeet.

Respect for PeopleWorking with the Los Angeles Police Department should bechallenging and rewarding. Our people are our most importantresource. We can best serve the many and varied needs of ourcommunities by empowering our employees to fulfill theirresponsibilities with knowledge, authority, and appropriate dis-cretion. We encourage our people to submit ideas, we listen totheir suggestions, and we help them develop to their maximumpotential. We believe in treating all people with respect anddignity. We show concern and empathy for the victims of crimeand treat violators of the law with fairness and dignity. Bydemonstrating respect for others, we will eam respect for the LosAngeles Police Department.

Quality Through Continuous ImprovementWe will strive to achieve the highest level of quality in allaspects of our work. We can never be satisfied with the 'statusquo.' We must aim for continuous improvement in serving thepeople in our communities. We value innovation and supportcreativity. We realise that constant change is a way of life in adynamic city like Los Angeles, and we dedicate ourselves toproactively seeking new and better ways to serve.

/. Reverence for the LawThe main thrust of a peace officer's duties consists of an attemptto enforce the law. In our application of the law, we must do itwithin a legal spirit which was so clearly set forth by the framersof the Bill of Rights, an original part of our Constitution. Thatbill had as its purpose elevating the rights of each citizen to aposition co-equal with the state which might accuse him. Itspurpose was to provide for an enforcement of the law withfundamental fairness and equity. Because of the Bill of Rights,the dignity of the individual person in America was placed in analmost sacred position of importance.

A peace officer's enforcement should not be done in grudg-ing adherence to the legal rights of the accused, but in a sincerespirit of seeking that every accused person is given all of hisrights as far as it is within the powers of the police. In thedischarge of our enforcement of criminal statutes, the peace

The Police Journal Volume 76 (2003)

officer must scrupulously avoid any conduct which would makehim a violator of the law. The solution of a crime, or the arrest ofa lawbreaker, can never justify the peace officer committing afelony as an expedient for the enforcement of the law.

We peace officers should do our utmost to foster a reverencefor the law. We can start best by displaying a reverence for thelegal rights of our fellow citizens and a reverence for the lawitself.

2. Crime Prevention Top PriorityThe basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crimeand disorder as an alternative to repression by military force andseverity of legal punishment. When the police fail to preventcrime, it becomes important to apprehend the person responsiblefor the crime and gather all evidence that might be used in asubsequent trial.

3. Public Approbation of PoliceThe ability of the police to perform their duties is dependentupon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior, andthe ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect.

4. Voluntcwy Lciw Obsen^anceThe police must secure the willing cooperation of the public involuntary observance of the law in order to be able to secure andmaintain the respect and approval of the public.

5. Public CooperationThe degree of public cooperation that can be secured diminishes,proportionately, the necessity for the use of physical force andcompulsion in achieving police objectives.

6. Impartial Friendly EnforcementThe police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering topublic opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutelyimpartial service to the law without regard to the justice orinjustice of the substance of individual laws; by readily offeringindividual service and friendship to all members of societywithout regard to their race or social standing; by the readyexercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by readilyoffering individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

7. Minimum Use of ForceThe police should use physical force to the extent necessary tosecure observance of the law or to restore order when the


exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to beinsufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should useonly the reasonable amount of physical force which is necessaryon any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

8. Public Are the PoliceThe police at all times should maintain a relationship with thepublic that gives reality to the historic tradition that the policeare the public and that the public are the police; the police are theonly members of the public who are paid to give full-timeattention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in theinterest of community welfare.

9. Limit of Police PowerThe police should always direct their actions strictly toward theirfunctions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciaryby avenging individuals or the state, or authoritatively judgingguilt or punishing the guilty.

10. Test of Police EffectivenessThe test of police effectiveness is the absence of crime and thepresence of public order. It is not the evidence of police action indealing with crime and disorder.

/ / . People Working with PoliceThe task of crime prevention cannot be accomplished by thepolice alone. This task necessarily requires the willing coopera-tion of both the police and the public working together toward acommon goal

72. People Working with PeopleSince the police cannot be expected to be on every residential orbusiness block, every hour of the day, a process must bedeveloped whereby each person becomes concerned with thewelfare and safety of his neighborhood. When people are work-ing with other people in their neighborhood, they can effectivelyreduce crime.

13. Managers Working with PoliceOnly line police officers perform the tasks for which police werecreated. They are the operating professionals. Supervisors andmanagers exist to define problems, to establish objectives, and toassist line police officers in the accomplishment of the policemission.


The evaluation of a manager should be based on theimprovement and excellence of his subordinates in the achieve-ment of organizational goals. The lifers blood of good manage-ment is a thoroughly systematic, two-way circulation ofinformation, feelings, and perceptions throughout the organiza-tion.

14. Police Working with PoliceFor many reasons, some specialization of work is necessary.Specialization should be created only when vitally necessary.When specialization is created, organization should be adjustedto ensure that the specialists and generalists who serve the samecitizens work closely together on the common problems in asinformal an organizational structure as possible. This will tend toensure a unity of effort, resources, and the effective service to acommon goal.

75. Police Working with Criminal Justice SystemIt must be recognised that the police and the people alone cannotsuccessfully resolve the problems of crime. The criminal justicesystem as a whole, in order to properly serve the public, mustoperate as a total system with all of its various elements workingtogether. The close cooperation of the police with prosecutors,courts, and correctional officers is necessary in order to ensurethe development of a safer community.

16. Police/Press RelationshipsOne of the first and most fundamental considerations of thisnation's founders in drafting the Bill of Rights was to provide fora free press as an essential element of the First Amendment tothe Constitution. They recognised that a well-informed citizenryis vital to the effective functioning of a democracy. Policeoperations profoundly affect the public and therefore arousesubstantial public interest. Likewise, public interest and publiccooperation bear significantly on the successful accomplishmentof any police mission. The police should make every reasonableeffort to serve the needs of the media in informing the publicabout crime and other police problems. This should be done withan attitude of openness and frankness whenever possible. Themedia should have access to personnel, at the lowest level in aDepartment, who are fully informed about the subject of a pressinquiry. The media should be told all that can be told that willnot impinge on a person's right to a fair trial, seriously impede a

The Police Journal, Volume 76 (2003)

criminal investigation, imperil a human life, or seriously endan-ger the security of the people. In such cases, the minimuminformation should be given which will not impinge on the fourareas and we should merely state that nothing more can besaid.

In all other matters in our relationship with the media indealing with current news, every member of the Departmentshould make every reasonable effort consistent with accomplish-ing the police task in providing the media representatives withfull and accurate material.

17. Management by ObjectivesIn order to effectively deal with the most important problems,objectives must be established. The establishment of objectivesand the means used to ensure that they are reached must includethe participation of those involved in the task. The setting of anobjective has very little meaning without the participation ofthose involved.

18. Management by ParticipationSince employees are greatly influenced by decisions that aremade and objectives that are established, it is important for themto be able to provide input into the methods utilised to reachthese decisions. Employees should be encouraged to makerecommendations which might lead to an improvement in thedelivery of police services and assist in the furtherance of theDepartment meeting its objective.

79. Territorial ImperativePolice work is one of the most personal of all personal services.It deals with human beings in life-and-death situations. Thepolice officers and the people they serve must be as close aspossible, and where possible must know one another. Suchcloseness can generate the police-citizen cooperation necessaryfor the involvement of the whole community in communityprotection. Organization of assignments should ensure that thepolice and the same citizens have an opportunity to continuouslywork for the protection of a specific community. Strengththrough interacting together and working together on commonproblems can be enhanced through officers and the peoplefeeling at home with one another in an atmosphere of mutualcooperation. This may be described as a utilization of theTerritorial Imperative.'


20, Openness and HonestyFor police-public cooperation, there must be respect of the policeby the public. This is best ensured by optimum openness of theDepartment in its operations. A general feeling and reality ofopenness must pervade the police organization. Above all, thepolice officer must be consistently open, honest, and trustful inall matters. A combination of honesty and openness will effec-tively develop respect in the community for the police and makeit possible for citizens to come to them with problems andinformation. Where this trust does not exist because of a lack ofhonesty or openness, the channels of communication betweenthe police and the public are clogged and the police mustdesperately struggle on alone.

Notes(All websites cited in this article were last accessed 17/12/2002.)

1. Samuel Walker, Popular Justice, A History of American CriminalJustice 2nd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) 53.

2. Craig D. Uchida, The Development of American Police. AnHistorical Overview' in R. Dunham and G. Alpert, Critical Issuesin Policing, Contemporary Readings, 3rd edn (Prospect Heights,IL: Waveland Press Inc., 1997), 22.

3. Uchida, 21-2.4. ibid.5. ibid.6. ibid.7. Walker, 53.8. ibid., 54.9. Wilbur R. Miller, "Cops and Bobbies, 1830-1870\ in C. Klockars

and S. Mastrofski, Thinking About Police, Contemporaty Readings(New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991), 75.

10. ibid., 75.11. Walker, 53.12. ibid., 52.13. Miller, 75.14. Charles Swanson, et al,. Police Administration: Structures, Pro-

cesses and Behavior (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999), 2.15. Another example of how tied the police were to the political

machine; in comparison, London police were not even allowed tovote until 1885!

16. Walker, 59.17. Miller, 76.18. ibid., 73.19. Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Signet

Classic, 2001), 268.20. Walker, 64.21. Dictionary.com


22. Egon Bittner, Aspects of Police Work (Boston, MA: NortheasternUniversity Press, (1990), 260.

23. Lawrence M. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American His-tory (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 69.

24. ibid., 70.25. Walker, 232.26. Miller, 81.27. ibid., 82.28. Larry K. Gaines, et ai. Policing in America (Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson Publishing Co., 1997), 5-6.29. ibid., 5-6.30. ibid., 59.31. Swanson, 15-16.32. www.lapdonHne.org


Documents

Peel