Essay Sample on Demilitarizing the Police

Introduction

The core objective of the U.S. military is to fight and deter foreign enemies and protect the country's sovereignty. This function justifies the use of speed, surprise, and the use of specialized weapons and tactics as well as heavy artillery. In contrast, the core function of civilian police is to maintain law and order in the local communities by maintaining peace while safeguarding the civil rights of the citizens. Regrettably, the line between the role of the police and military has been dangerously blurring over the recent past. There have been high-profile encounters between the police and community members in Ferguson, New York, Baltimore, and Chicago most of which ended with fatalities. In December 2014, protesters in Ferguson declared "reclaiming" of the St. Louis Police Department by posting an eviction notice on its walls. The protesters claimed that the police department was transforming into an "occupying force." in December 2016, over 2,000 veterans stood together at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to act as "human shields" for protesters (Paul 5). The choice of language in the two unrelated incidences was an indication of the normalization of the militarization of police. Terms such as "human shields" and "occupation" are common in war but not law enforcement. The over-militarized police culture threatens the country's constitutional rights of free speech and freedom from unreasonable seizure.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Militarized Policing Undermines Public Trust

The main argument against the militarization of police officers is that it has proven insufficient. Instead of reducing criminal activities in the local communities, it has resulted in increased violence between law enforcement and civilians. Additionally, the approach undermines the legitimacy of police in the eyes of the public. When citizens are convinced that the police will always respond with violence, encounters between the two parties could escalate causing unwanted harm to either of the sides. A display of force on the polices' side could catalyze the public to retaliate resulting in increased violence. The "war on drugs" serves as a perfect example. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and other agencies fighting narcotics have normalized militarization which has caused a cycle of violence. War against narcotic crimes uses a heavy-handed approach leading to turf wars among the drug dealers leading to more violence. Consequently, the public pressures law enforcement agencies to get even tougher by using more. Unfortunately, the war on narcotics has had the worst results over the last couple of decades. Policymakers, judges, scholars, and police alike have hailed the war as a failure because despite the billions of dollars used, thousands of people have lost their lives and the war is yet to be won (Steinberg 131)

The militarization of police can, therefore, create conflict between the public and law enforcement causing loss of trust in the police. More specifically, trust will be replaced by hatred or fear resulting in decreasing legitimacy of police. A study found the unintended consequences of militarization to galvanize a negative reaction of the police which could result in aggravated concerns about law enforcement in local communities (Delehanty 205). Regrettably, there is little research on how militarization impacts the perception of police by the public. McMichael maintains that the patrolling of streets with armored carriers, the use of military weapons, dispersing of riots using grenades, SWAT teams covering their faces to hide their identity among other tactics used by the police usually create a shock and awe effect (116). A further problem from these tactics is changing of self-perception of the police officers. For instance, the armored carriers and covering of face with masks could make the militarized police officers to perceive themselves as infantrymen. In such a case, the policemen will view their job to be framed in military setting causing them to replace discretion about arrests and appropriate level of force with aggressive intimidation. Such an approach minimizes the applicability of delicate problem-solving role of police officers.

Militarized Policing Threatens Community-Oriented Policing

Before the police adopted a militarized approach, they used a more holistic approach known as community-oriented policing. The method which was developed in the late 1960s emphasized on effective partnerships and collaborations between law enforcement and local community members to serve by addressing the major issues that affected public safety. With increasing distrust of the police by the public due to heavy militarization, community policing may be threatened. According to Paul, law enforcement officers' legitimacy and ability to perform their duties heavily depends on the degree of trust developed and the nature of communication with the communities they serve (6). With more use of military equipment, tactics, and culture developing in the departments, the risk of forming a combat mindset by the police increases which makes it harder to develop and maintain the trust and communication approaches necessary for community-based policing (Stamper 456).

Unsurprisingly, police militarization is a two-sided coin. With the increase of terrorism, mass shootings among other violent crimes in the country, the police may have a legitimate need to use military weapons and tactics. Such circumstances require a fast and effective response to maintain peace and public safety. In such incidences, the use of military equipment and tactics is justified. However, in practice, police are currently using weapons and tactics almost in their daily police work. Local law enforcement officers are increasingly using military tactics and force in their routine search warrants or to police First Amendment-protected protesters. The degree to which militarization have infiltrated police departments is alarming. The federal grants to police departments and surplus equipment given out by the military are some of the reasons why militarization is on the rise (Delehanty 207). Additionally, seizure laws allow the police department to keep the weapons taken during their raids.

Conclusion

It is no doubt that violent crimes such as mass shootings as well as terrorist attacks are on the rise in the country. while this may be a good enough for the militarization of law enforcement officers to many people, the approach is yet to prove effective in addressing such cases. In fact, the rise in violence may be because of the increased militarization. Furthermore, the community-based policing approach has yielded better results because it involves both the police and the local communities in solving the crime and preventing it as well. Militarization threatens community-based policing by creating distrust of the police among the public and interfering with communication approached between the community members and the law enforcement officers. Nonetheless, the main reason why the government needs to rethink and repeal the militarization of police is the change of perception of the officers. Outfitting the officers with military equipment and emphasizing on the combative nature of the job feeds the mindset that an officer is a soldier at war rather than the appropriate mindset of a police officer serving a community.

Works Cited

Delehanty, Casey. "Militarization and police violence: The case of the 1033 program." Research & Politics 4.2 (2017): 205-209.

McMichael, Christopher. "Pacification and police: A critique of the police militarization thesis." Capital & Class 41.1 (2017): 115-132.

Paul, Rand. "We must demilitarize the police." Time Magazine (2014): 5-6.

Stamper, Norm. Breaking rank: A top cop's expose of the dark side of American policing. Nation Books, 2006: 456-498

Steinberg, Robin G. "Police Power and the Scaring of America: A Personal Journey." Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 34 (2015): 131.