Defend or defund? Procedural justice can lead the way in either case.

In 1829, the “Father of Modern Policing” Sir Robert Peel’s introduced nine imperative principles for the burgeoning profession of law enforcement. The sixth principle of policing mandates that, “police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient” (Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles, n.d.). Much of the tension, conflict, and discord that plagues so many of our communities, and the basic canons of the social contract, stem from interpretative differences and ethical violations of that basic principle. In the extreme, we observe police brutality, community mistrust, and experimentation with the removal of public safety services—often from the communities that require those services the most. ?

Police officers contact the citizens they serve at least 61.5 million times annually (Harrell & Davis, 2020). The imperative frequency of interaction necessitates more than normative guidance or theoretical social ontology. And it certainly deserves more than sloganeering. The fundamental dignity that all humans merit demands a more prescribed philosophy for citizen-state interactions. And while ethics, constitutions, morals, and social norms provide some guidance, a more specific inter-personal roadmap is required if communal harmony is truly the intended goal. ?

This is where procedural justice tenets can step in to fill the void. “Procedural justice speaks to four principles, often referred to as the four pillars: 1) being fair in processes, 2) being transparent in actions, 3) providing opportunity for voice, and 4) being impartial in decision making” (Moe & Bradley, 2015).

Combined with progressive communication techniques—the literal and formal fabric of all human interaction—we can suffuse many of those 61.5 million contacts with qualifiable exchanges of words and phrases that command and bestow respect, fairness, and an inclusion of the citizen voice. ?

Article 11 of the Canon of Police Ethics dictates that a “…law enforcement officer shall regard the discharge of his duties as a public trust and recognize his responsibility as a public servant.” (International Association of Chief's of Police, 1957). Likewise, Plato outlines the need for identification and training of societies’ guardians towards just behavior in pursuit of what is “best for the city” (Republic, 413c). These imperatives align with procedural justice tenets which provide specific action-oriented guidelines that entail citizen participation, neutral decision-making, dignity, and trustworthy motives (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2013, p. 7). From a casual conversation about the weather, to issuing a traffic citation or warning, to an arrest for a violent offense, the paradigm shift of expressed meanings and values through language can become the catalyst for positive social change. ?

We might begin by replacing certain loaded cliches and outdated terms that hold nebulous meanings and bleak, confrontational undertones. “Use of force” is a common term and one that Peel alludes to in his sixth principle. However, he limits the description to “physical force”, which simultaneously overestimates and underestimates the actual physical and perceptual concepts in play. Most contemporary police academies will teach young officers that mere presence can be considered a use of force. Verbal commands might also fall into that category, but do not involve physical force. The Cochran Firm (2020) illustrates the six levels of the force continuum as such:

Unfortunately, the extant literature on the topic fails to address the precise quantity or “types of force used, as the spectrum of force runs from mere presence to verbal commands, closed hand techniques, open hand techniques, less-lethal, etc.” (Hardin, 2015, p. 45). The Bureau of Justice Statistics does however provide qualitative data showing only 2.0% of contacts with police result in force, as determined by the perceptions of the citizen themselves. These discernments include “threatening use of force, pushing, grabbing, handcufng [sic], hitting, kicking, using chemical or pepper spray, using an electroshock weapon, or pointing a gun” (Harrell & Davis, 2020, table ). Note that interpretive impressions are included in this operational defintion that may or may not correspond contextually, or to the officer’s intent. How a hand movement, a facial expression, or even posture is personally received can be interpreted as “force”. A slight shift of an officer’s wrist near her firearm, taser, or other force option can be perceived by a citizen as an aggressive show of “force”. According to Gau (2010), “citizens do approach officers with preconceived notions and stereotypes that can impact their interpretation of the fairness and quality of officers” (p.239). It is this perceptual divide that requires further attention and research. ?

None of this is meant to dismiss that interpretative experience. Rather, procedural justice provides the mechanism through which we can respect, include, clarify, and potentially amend both officer and citizen interpretations, closing the gap in their disparate interpretative experiences. Conceivably, circumscribing precise concepts to replace subjective vocabulary is where an opportunity exists to improve social accord and foster community harmony. ?

Consider the action we all take when driving and we see a police car pull in behind us. Almost involuntarily, our foot comes off the gas pedal and goes onto the brake. The mere sight of the symbols of the office compels us to change course, alter our current state of mind, and modify our physical behaviors. In such a dynamic, communication and messaging are paramount. And the suggestion is now being made to re-imagine the way we perceive police action; not as some unprovoked or unlawful act of violence, but as a “control technique” that is responsive in nature.

It is time we start looking at our own terminology so that we can begin to recapture the narrative baked into the rhetoric surrounding “use of force”. By changing how we talk about and explain “use of force”, we can begin that process (Bautista & Avera, 2021). ?

Language matters. Reclassifying police-citizen interactions with more precise terms and specific operational definitions, that cleanly hold the contextual concepts and meanings in play, can decompress much of the social tension plaguing many communities. For example, explaining data that demonstrate 98% of police-citizen encounters do not end in, or require, force. Or perhaps reviewing the social compact charge that citizens must comply with lawful orders while reminding officers that compliance is based on a tacit agreement, even pre-condition, that “ideally any situation is controlled peacefully through the officer’s use of verbal communication, encouragement, and persuasion” (Bautista & Avera, 2021, p. 12). ?

Investing in procedural justice principles through police academy and in-service training, we can inoculate police-citizen contacts with phrases like “what would you like to see done here today?” and closing with “is there anything else we can we do for you?”. The presence of the collaborative term “we” reminds all involved that “the police are the public and the public are the police” (Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles, n.d.). These queries communicate respect and dignity by not just including, but soliciting the voice of the citizen(s). Including citizen responses to these questions, and explaining their weight in calculating outcomes, increases perceived fairness, dignity, and respect for community stakeholders. Officers can demonstrate impartial decision-making by explaining all factors affecting outcomes, such as penal code mandates, and offer instructive guidance on the contextual variables that formulate each choice. Documenting this communicative process through bodycam footage or other recording mediums provides an opportunity for follow-up town-halls where these enforcement decisions are publicly fleshed out and explained. Transparency emerges in these venues where individuals meet and confer, discuss and debate, and the evolution of terms can begin.

Fully disclosing why a control technique was used deconstructs the connotatively charged “use of force”, and elucidates the type, and responsive nature of, legitimate police action. Once the stakeholders agree, conceptually and in context, with an operational definition of terms, doors begin to open for collaborative conversations on situational avoidance, compliance, and accountability. It can also aid citizens in identifying and reporting police abuses and aberrant behaviors that stray from these agreed upon terms. Individually and collectively, communities can share their thoughts and preferences about control techniques, and a common ground of tolerance and understanding is established.

In the absence of such conversations, and a clarity and refinement of language and terms, the same old tropes and triggers remain in place, harming our communities, by the year, the day, the hour, the minute. Procedural justice tenets can be made tangible. They can be taught. They can be learned. If we change the way we categorical identify and react to certain words and phrases we can improve the way we respond to such terms in daily interactions. Providing a chance for dignity, demonstrating respect, and including the voice of others are all intrinsic abstractions we should strive to make material. ?

?

References

Bautista, D., & Avera, B. (2021, August ). Recapturing the Narrative. Peace Officer Research Council of California: Law Enforcement News, pp. 12-14.

Gau, J. (2010). A longitudinal analysis of citizens' attitudes about police. 33(2).

Hardin, D. A. (2015). Public-Police Relations" Officer's interpretations of Citizen Contacts. Doctoral dissertation, Walden University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Harrell, E., & Davis, E. (2020, December 11). Contacts between the police and the publilc, 2018. Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/contacts-between-police-and-public-2018-statistical-tables

International Association of Chief's of Police. (1957). Canon of Police Ethics. Retrieved from Office of Jutsice Programs: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/canons-police-ethics

Jonathan-Zamir, T., Mastrofski, S., & Moyal, S. (2013, October). Measuring procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Justice Quarterly, 32(5), 1-27. doi:10.1080/ 07418825.2013.845677

Moe, C., & Bradley, M. (2015, April). Organizational Change through Decision Making and Policy: A New Procedural Justice Course for Managers and Supervisors. Community Policing Dispatch, 8(4). Retrieved from https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/04-2015/a_new_procedural_justice_course.asp

Plato. (2004). The Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett. (Original work published ca. 370 B.C.E).

Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles. (n.d.). Retrieved from Law Enforcement Action Partnership: https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/peel-policing-principles/

The Cochran Firm. (2020, August 7). 8 Ways Police Can and Cannot Legally Infringe on Your Civil Rights. Retrieved from The Cochran Firm: https://cochranfirm.com/8-ways-police-can-and-cannot-legally-infringe-on-your-civil-rights/