The Distinction between Liberal and Authoritarian Police Forces Essay Example

that aim to instill fear and command respect from those who oppose them. One prime example of this brutality can be seen in the case of Darren Wilson, a police officer who fatally choked Eric Garner. This incident serves as proof that there are significant differences between authoritarian policing and liberal policing. However, some criminologists argue that these two forces do have similarities in certain aspects. Mead suggests that in order to preserve freedom, there needs to be some level of authoritarianism to maintain order and regulate citizens' behavior. In contrast, liberal police officers prioritize society and recognize its intricate connection with the nation.

According to Mead, the government can achieve full democracy by adopting the values and beliefs of society. Other criminologists, like Facoult, argue that the liberal police force is distinct from an authoritarian one. Policing with a liberal approach prioritizes both order and citizens' freedom, opposing authoritarian methods (Rojek 2012, 126). Since the Middle Ages, the liberal police force has relied on various agencies, building upon the territorial state. This approach leads them to form partnerships or contracts with non-governmental agencies involved in policing. Officers with liberal beliefs are connected to civil society and strive to provide security for its activities. They do this by taking on a facilitating role, allowing regulation to proceed naturally without hindrance.

From a liberal standpoint, the police have the role of enabling or guiding instead of prescribing or directing. In contrast, an authoritarian police force trains its officers to always be vigilant for and punish lawbreakers, forcefully imposing government-made laws on citizens. These laws are deemed so crucial by the police that they are willing to risk their

lives to protect them.

A study examining policing styles discovered that most of the 116 graduating recruits displayed authoritarian characteristics rather than liberal ones, demonstrating aggression and interception. Furthermore, McNamara's research revealed that authoritarianism escalates over time.

The F-square test was used to evaluate the level of authoritarianism among police recruits nearing graduation from a police academy. The results showed that as police officers gained more experience, their degree of authoritarianism tended to increase. The study also investigated how social class affects the personality traits of police officers. It was found that a majority of police officers come from a working-class background, which has an impact on their personality characteristics. The researcher argued that there is an inverse relationship between class or socio-economic status and authoritarianism. As a result, most police officers, who have working-class origins, exhibit authoritarian tendencies and are more prone to using violence compared to the minority of liberal, democratic-minded police officers (Klaus 2005, 103). From an authoritarian perspective, it is expected for a good policeman to be distrustful (Williams 2003, 87).

Police officers undergo training to develop a sense of suspicion, which is crucial for effectively detecting unusual activities. This training applies to both authoritarian and liberal officers. Authoritarian officers are particularly interested in gathering information about store hours and the daily routines of individuals in a specific area, as this helps them identify any abnormal occurrences. On the other hand, liberal officers prioritize demonstrating citizens' freedom while ensuring that it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Toch and Schulte conducted research on how police training influences the perception of violence. They discovered that being suspicious allows officers to pinpoint suspects and

abnormalities within society or their jurisdiction (Hills 2001, 71).

According to criminologists, there are two types of police officers when it comes to their treatment of minority groups: authoritarian and democratic liberal. The democratic liberal officers strive for fairness and equality for all, regardless of race, social class, gender, or age. In a study conducted by Reiss in London, it was discovered that many authoritarian police officers engage in discrimination against black individuals and disproportionately attribute criminal activities to them. Reiss employed participant observation research methods by closely observing the day-to-day routines of police officers. His observations revealed that a significant portion of authoritarian police officers hold derogatory views towards black individuals, perceiving them as less than human or primitive.

Reiss identified a majority of authoritarian police officers, but also found some who were democratic. Democratic officers recognized that criminal activities are determined by inherent nature or personality, rather than race. In contrast to authoritarian police, liberal officers focused on suspect behavior rather than race. Paynich's research in 2009 demonstrated the distinction between these two forces (97). It is widely agreed that overwhelming force is most effective in handling political unrest or post-conflict situations. This approach justifies police officers' relentless nature and use of lethal force against perceived threats like riots and strikes. However, it often leads to paramilitary personalities among officers that are predominantly authoritarian, resulting in instances of shooting unarmed civilians during protests. These actions violate UN conventions prohibiting the killing of unarmed individuals or civilians by police or military personnel.According to Williams, it is essential to train police officers in deescalating tense situations. By acknowledging the importance of conducting a crime investigation prior to

deciding how to handle the crime or group behavior, officers can successfully achieve this goal.

The distinction between liberal and authoritarian police officers is evident in their approach to criminal cases and relationships with the community. Liberal officers prioritize the suspect's human rights and privileges during their investigation, allowing for a fair outcome (Ortmeier 2010, 211). Additionally, they implement community policing programs to combat crime. In contrast, authoritarian officers maintain a suspicious view of everyone and are unable to empower the community to aid in policing efforts. Police administrators embracing a liberal perspective deploy officers to local neighborhoods, aiming to establish a positive rapport with residents (Valverde 2011, 91). This strategy is employed by democratic police forces to mend any existing grievances between the force and locals who may be wary due to past violent incidents. Conversely, authoritarian forces exhibit limited willingness to collaborate with residents.

The distinction between an authoritarian police force and a liberal police force is evident. Liberal police commandants seek to reform the way police respond to political tensions and demonstrations. They aim to train officers to approach collective behaviors with calmness and gentleness. In contrast, authoritarian police officers are trained to be harsh and ruthless in their efforts to quell political unrest (Colquhoun 1969, 102). However, attempts to make the police force more liberal and democratic may fail in some societies due to the rise in political unrest, protests, riots, and violent uprisings. This is because residents perceive liberal police officers as too gentle and soft, which gives them confidence to engage in criminal activities without consequences. Criminologists and international relation experts agree that some level of violence displayed by authoritarian

police officers is necessary to combat crime and maintain societal peace. They argue that tough law enforcement is crucial for crime reduction.

A case study in Richmond, USA showcased the success of a police reform initiative led by Magnus, the new police commandant. The objective was to transition the police force from a violent and authoritarian approach to a more liberal style of policing. Surprisingly, this change proved effective in reducing crime rates in what was once known as one of the most violent cities in the country.

In 2013, Richmond experienced a significant decline in delinquency, recording only 16 reported homicides - the lowest number in the past 35 years (Bonn 2004, 62).

A similar transformation from an authoritarian to liberal policing force can be observed in Oakland, USA. To mend their relationship with civilians who had been negatively impacted by violent tactics employed during protests, Oakland decided to provide compensation for injured protestors. This decision was influenced by Richmond's positive reputation for its progressive approach.

There is often an assumption that liberal politicians are opposed to law enforcement, creating expectations of disorder if they are elected. However, numerous cities have demonstrated a reduction in crime rates by implementing a liberal police force strategy (Hansen 2002, 61).

Agee's case study, which focused on the illegal operation of gay bars, highlighted the contrasting nature of authoritarian and liberal police forces. Agee argued that the authoritarian police force exhibited higher levels of corruption by accepting bribes in order to allow the bars to continue operating. In comparison, the liberal police force was portrayed as less corrupt.

According to Hettne (2012, 145), the introduction of liberal government and a legal police force led

to a significant decrease in corruption rates in countries that implemented liberal police reforms. These reforms involved tracking police officers who accepted bribes and allowing charges to be brought against them. The adoption of liberal police reforms in certain cities resulted in an increase in court cases for owners of gay bars and lawbreakers, indicating that the liberal police force is more effective at reducing and suppressing corruption compared to authoritarian police.

The liberal police force demonstrates a certain level of resident categorization, utilizing liberal or democratic approaches to determine who can and cannot be citizens. They also explore the potential of achieving a crime-free society when given complete freedom without authoritarian restrictions. However, if society fails to maintain peace and prevent criminal activities, liberal police officers will adopt an authoritarian persona. Therefore, there is a distinction between the two police forces – the liberal force promotes independence and freedom for citizens who can handle being free without causing political uprisings or criminal disturbances that disrupt social harmony. Conversely, the authoritarian police force rejects the notion of freedom, instead operating with strictness and violence to maintain societal calm and deter criminal behavior (Anderson 2012, 67). Examples of previous authoritarian police activities include Nazi Germany's racial hygiene policies and China's one-child policy.The government utilized the police force in these instances to effectively implement their policies. The officers resorted to an authoritarian approach, employing force and violent tactics to ensure strict adherence to the policies. However, it is incorrect to assume that this is the only effective method. The liberal police force approach has also proven successful in enforcing policies within the community.

The liberal police force adopts a

more democratic approach, allowing residents to participate in the creation of policies that govern them. This ensures a higher likelihood of residents complying with these policies, as they have been involved in their formation. Liberal thinkers perceive the enforcement of non-liberal policies as authoritarian and argue that it distorts resident behavior and market dynamics. However, it is worth noting that certain authoritarian policies, such as China's one-child policy, can effectively manage population growth and maintain a desirable society. These varying approaches to policy enforcement illustrate the distinction between liberal and authoritarian police forces (Cockell 2002, 92). Ultimately, the differences between these two types of police forces outweigh their similarities. Notably, the liberal police force differs from its authoritarian counterpart in its treatment of criminal suspects. Liberal officers acknowledge the rights and freedoms of suspects, while authoritarian officers are inclined to be suspicious of all activities and may resort to violence when dealing with suspects.

When it comes to dealing with criminal cases, liberal police officers have a more calm and composed approach compared to their authoritarian counterparts. The authoritarian police force heavily relies on the use of force to control instances of collective unrest such as riots, protests, and political disturbances. They firmly believe that the application of force is the only way to suppress political instability. This perspective contrasts sharply with the liberal standpoint which emphasizes maintaining peace when addressing political unrest like strikes and protests. In contrast, liberal police officers actively work towards building a positive relationship with residents in order to promote community policing. On the other hand, the excessive brutality displayed by the authoritarian police force has further deepened the gap between

law enforcement officers and civilians.