The Field of LAW ENFORCEMENT

LESSON OUTLINE
A. The Basic Concept of Law Enforcement
B. Law Enforcement and Policing
C. Law Enforcement as Social Control
D. Four Perspectives to Law Enforcement

1.
1. The Legal Perspective
2. The Public Policy Perspective
3. The Systems Theory Perspective
4. The Global Perspective

E. The Perspective of this Lesson

------------------------------------o0o------------------------------------

A. THE BASIC CONCEPT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

In western society, as in all modern societies, the enforcement of the law is vital —
without some type of law enforcement, a society would eventually cease to exist.
Generally speaking, the function called law enforcement is a society's formal attempt to
obtain compliance with the established rules, regulations, and laws of that society.
Without law enforcement, society as we know it would probably succumb to social
disorder and chaos.
Western societies, just like the United States, observe representative
democracy which places great emphasis on the protection of individual freedoms and
liberties; as such, its institutions must reflect those principles upon which the country
was founded. Because the United States is predominately an open and free society —
in the political sense, with freedom to disagree from region to region, state to state, and
city to city about how to design and direct law enforcement and develop policy — it is
common to have disagreements about how to enforce the law.
Citizens in democratic societies, just like in the Philippines, have often questioned the
actions of government officials. As citizens, they may not always agree with what
happens on the street, in police stations, in courtrooms, in jails, or in prisons, but people
possess the freedom to criticize and protest governmental actions (or inactions)
because of the structure of our criminal justice system. That structure and the
Constitution may occasionally appear to be in conflict with one another, but that may
also be evidence that the system works. The debate over civil liberties and national
security that has emerged since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States is
another example of our principles at work.
Inevitably, such issues prompt us to ask 2 significant questions:

1. How can the law enforcement community function to preserve the civil liberties
and freedoms that are cherished and protected by the Constitution? and
2. How do we balance our constitutional rights with public safety and national
security concerns?

The purpose of this lesson is to help you answer these questions by providing
information about the field of law enforcement, so that you have an understanding and
appreciation for both its objectives and activities. Such a background is necessary for
you to develop informed opinions about the field, rather than opinions based on limited
knowledge and experience. Everyone has opinions; some are more informed than
others. Informed persons have a foundation (facts and evidence) for their arguments
and reasons for doing things, making choices, and advocating changes. Society needs
informed, knowledgeable citizens that understand the field of law enforcement and its
impact on social behavior.
Law enforcement is one means of formally supervising human behavior to ensure that
the laws and regulations of a society are followed and that there is a certain amount of
security and stability in society. The enforcement of law in all of its forms (statutes,
regulations, administrative codes, ordinances, zoning laws, etc.) is legally authorized by
the concept of police powers, which is the government's lawful authority to enact
regulations and laws related to health, safety, welfare, and morals. Police powers are
carried out by the various levels of government, including the establishment and
regulation of water and sewer systems, highway and transportation systems, fire
protection, monetary regulatory systems, health and medical systems, park and
recreation areas, general assistance to the economically deprived, and food processing.
In short, police powers provide the authority for law enforcement officials to act.
The process of law enforcement is a formal one sanctioned in the United States by the
people (voters) through their elected governmental bodies. Of the three branches of
government, the law enforcement function is the responsibility of the executive branch.
Executive branch officials include the President of the country, governors at the
provincial level, and mayors at the local level. These officials and their representatives
use their governmental authority in the appointment of law enforcement officials and the
establishment of philosophies and general policies under which they will operate. The
other branches of government also affect the ability of law enforcement officials to
perform their jobs. The legislative branch provides the statutory authority under which
law enforcement officials operate. This authority includes the lawful right to use different
levels of force to achieve law enforcement goals and objectives, and it is the authorized
use of this force that sets law enforcement officials apart from other occupations. Also,
the legislative branch is formally responsible for defining behavior that is to be
considered criminal in a particular jurisdiction. The judicial branch of government
reviews the actions of law enforcement officials according to the established rules of
constitutional law, civil law, criminal procedure, and evidence. This review normally
occurs during judicial proceedings, such as initial hearings, preliminary hearings,
suppression of evidence hearings, and trials (civil and criminal). The judicial branch,
through the review process, creates rules for how law enforcement may operate in a
given context; examples include the rules of interrogation, arrest, and the use of force.
 

B. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND POLICING

The concept of law enforcement encompasses all levels (national and local) of the
executive branch of government. It includes agencies that enforce administrative codes
and regulations (rules of agencies) and criminal laws related to the health, public safety,
and welfare of the people. A broad spectrum of officials with titles such as inspector,
special agent, auditor, investigator, marshal, constable, or police officer can be found in
law enforcement agencies. These officials may be employees of agencies that inspect
the food supply (Department of Agriculture), investigate the causes of fires (BFP),
protect abused and neglected children (DSWD), investigate criminal complaints (local
law enforcement), and/or apprehend offenders (any agency with arrest authority).
The term policing, on the other hand, refers to a subset of law enforcement that applies
to the process of regulating the general health, safety, welfare, and morals of society as
it relates to criminal behavior. The policing function in western countries (that follow the
US model) is primarily observed through the operations of the criminal justice system in
the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of crime. The personnel
affiliated with agencies who are engaged in policing functions can be referred to as law
enforcement personnel; however, in the United States, police officials are a unique
group of law enforcement officials because they are armed and are authorized to use
coercive and physical force, under certain conditions, when carrying out their duties.
They are non-military, armed, governmental personnel who are granted the authority to
prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute criminal behavior and to apprehend alleged
offenders.
The focus of this text is on the policing agencies of the law enforcement community.
However, it must be understood that the entire law enforcement community is quite
extensive. The term law enforcement also is used to describe one of the many
functions within policing agencies; in fact, the local policing agency personnel normally
spend less than 20—30% of their time engaged in crime-related law enforcement
functions (Greene and Klockars 1991, 279). Most of their time is spent on prevention,
general public service, and order maintenance functions. Today's professional police
officials often do not want to emphasize their law enforcement functions; they prefer to
be thought of for their service, especially the public safety functions which do not involve
enforcement activities.
In the United States, some states add to the confusion of terms by using the phrase
"peace officer" to refer to an entire class of policing officials who generally are
authorized by statutory law to make arrests and serve warrants. A sample of such
statutory language for the state of Ohio. Notice that the state has 23 different types of
peace officers. (It is also interesting to note that, for definitional purposes in Ohio,
"sheriffs" and state troopers" are not peace officers. However, there are other statutes
that describe their authority as "law enforcement officers.")
As a student of the policing function, you should know that the terminology associated
with police officials and their agency affiliations is important and occasionally confusing.
Several terms (police powers, law enforcement, policing officials, and peace officer)
have been used above and may appear to be very similar. It is essential to know that
titles in the law enforcement field are important, and to know the different titles that
distinguish policing officials. It does get confusing, but personnel in the law enforcement
field do make these distinctions for reasons of courtesy, respect, and clarification of
responsibilities. An analogy might be that most of us drive vehicles, but some insist on
referring to their vehicles by name — Vios, Civic, Fortuner, Everest, Range, Hilux and
so on; not all vehicles are created equal, and some people want you to know that! In
this same vein, police officials are of different types and serve different jurisdictions, and
may also possess different legal authority under the law. All police officials are law
enforcement officers, but not all law enforcement officers are called "police." It is
possible that you may encounter some police officials who are sensitive about their
titles. If you plan to become an employee in the criminal justice field, it is recommended
that you pay attention to titles and job classifications.
Law enforcement personnel occupy unique positions in western society. They act with
the authority of the state, meaning that they have been entrusted with the lawful right to
enforce the law. In the United States, few people are given the authority (under certain
carefully defined conditions) to use coercive force to carry out that duty. Some of these
officials are uniformed (and therefore easily visible), and others are not. Regardless of
the title or whether they wear a uniform or not, police officials in our society serve in a
formal social control capacity.
Social control is the process whereby a society encourages or enforces compliance
with social norms, customs, and laws. There are various viewpoints regarding how
limited or extensive this social control function should be. Let us examine in greater
depth some of the aspects of the concept of social control.
 

C. LAW ENFORCEMENT AS SOCIAL CONTROL

Law enforcement is a societal function necessary for internal stability and security.
Through the process of law  enforcement, society exercises a form of social control of
behavior, deviant or otherwise. Every society has social control mechanisms because
they serve as a means of  socialization, or the process of teaching the culture and
norms of the society to its members.
Social control mechanisms are either formal or informal. Formal mechanisms generally
refer to the units of the governing authority of the country; formal social control units in
the United States include the executive, legislative, and judicial components of the
governmental structure at all levels of government. Informal mechanisms include family,
peers, religious organizations, significant others, and so on. Figure 1 depicts a simplified
version of selected social control mechanisms.
Social control mechanisms are not as simple to classify as Figure 1 might indicate. For
example, where should education be placed? The educational process can be
considered a formal control mechanism because it is often supported (via taxes) by
government institutions. What you learn in school, however, is not simply the formal
curriculum, but many other things as well (such as social skills, teamwork, manners,
customs, etc.). Thus, it would fit equally well as an informal mechanism.
The social control mechanisms of a society do not exist in a vacuum. Social, economic,
and political influences impact social control. These influences cause shifts in attitudes
and values over time, in that they can cause a society to become more conservative or
more liberal in its approach to controlling behavior. Social influences come mainly from
the interaction between people and groups and include forces such as customs, values
and religion. Economic influences refer to resources (employment, income, and
inflation) and the distribution of goods and services (transportation systems and
businesses). Political factors include the policy-making process (elections, legislative
actions, lobbying) and its related institutions (Congress, legislatures, and city councils).
Figure 2 identifies a number of examples of these influences upon society.
As with the placement of formal and informal social control mechanisms, the influencing
factors are not easily categorized into social, economic, or political ones. For example,
the factor of "poverty" is listed in all three categories. Is poverty a social condition? Is it
an economic one? What influence do politics and public policy have on poverty? You
could persuasively argue each of these positions, and there is validity to each. Likewise,
"terrorism" is listed under political influences, but doesn't it also influence social and
economic issues?
Social control issues raise several questions for law enforcement. How much of a role
should policing have in the social control function in society? Should there be greater
emphasis placed on formal control mechanisms, that is, the government's influence on
controlling behavior? Or should the informal control mechanism be emphasized for
guiding and influencing behavior? Ultimately, the question becomes one of how much
influence the police should have on controlling people's behavior. A person who
believes that the police should not have much of a role in controlling societal behavior
would probably believe that there should be greater emphasis placed on the informal
mechanisms (e.g., family, church, peer group), while one who believes the police should
play an active role in controlling social behavior may emphasize tough policing
measures to control behavior and greater use of the courts and formal punishments to
influence behavior.
Let us examine four common perspectives (viewpoints) to social control and their
impact on policing in the United States. These perspectives are important because they
reflect the diversity of ideas and beliefs of how our government agencies should
function. They reflect how citizens view crime and influence government policies related
to preventing and controlling criminal behavior.
 

D. FOUR PERSPECTIVES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

There are several ways to view the world in which we live. Some people take a narrow
viewpoint of certain issues, while others take a broader approach in perceiving
situations. For example, in a verbal description about the design of a building, the
architect may have one mental image or perspective, the builder a different one, and the
prospective resident yet another. The architect may be concerned about how the
building "fits" into the land-scape or with the surrounding buildings. The builder is
possibly thinking about cost and what types of materials are to be used. The resident
could be concerned about the location of internal features, the size of rooms, utilities
costs, and how soon it can be built. Each viewpoint is valid in and of itself, but the focus
of the discussion can become very confusing if the three persons do not attempt to see
the other person's approach to the building. In this example, a comprehensive set of
blueprints and architectural drawings could help each person better perceive the others'
concerns. In the following discussion, various approaches to viewing the field of law
enforcement are presented. If a person is an advocate of one of these approaches and
is discussing law enforcement with a person who holds a different viewpoint, there could
be confusion or heated debate. The purpose here is to increase your understanding of
each approach to help you reduce confusion and conflict over issues in policing, as
sometimes situations are improved when one can see the other person's point of view.
It must be remembered that these approaches are not totally independent of one
another; occasionally some aspects overlap with other perspectives. It is also possible
that a person can hold one perspective on a particular issue and a different perspective
on another issue.
 

1. The Legal Perspective

One common approach to policing is that "the law is the law." The legal perspective is
an approach that views behavior from a rule-based philosophy, in that the law is
paramount and it is the guide for behavior that everyone must follow. Strong advocates
of crime control and severe
punishment for infractions often adopt this perspective. While there is merit in holding
the law in high regard, one must be careful to evaluate a particular law's purpose and
whether it is too restrictive. The legalistic approach is evident when someone says,
"there should be a law against that." The person is implying that making the behavior a
crime will stop people from doing it, or at least allow the authorities to intervene.
In this perspective, police officials are placed in an awkward position, since they have
sworn to enforce the laws of the nation and the state. They know that if they strictly
enforce the law, many, many people would be arrested or given summonses; therefore,
these officials must evaluate behavior in terms of "the letter-of-the-law" and "the spirit-
of-the-law." If the letter-of-the-law is adhered to, then any violation of law results in
official intervention by the police. If the spirit-of-the-law is followed, degrees of
seriousness and contextual factors may be considered. Some laws may not be enforced
at all, and some people who non-flagrantly violate the law may be handled informally
(e.g., verbal reprimand, warnings) or with no intervention at all.
This evaluative process leads to the use of discretion and selective
enforcement. Discretion is the process of making a choice among appropriate
alternative courses of action. Although most state codes do not give peace officers the
lawful right to use discretion, it has been professionally and judicially acknowledged.
The police simply cannot enforce every law that has been enacted; selective
enforcement refers to enforcing those laws deemed appropriate to the situation or
related to the priorities of the agency and the community. The opposite of selective
enforcement, full enforcement, is enforcing all laws all the time, which, again, is not
possible. One major drawback of the legal perspective is the belief that simply passing
and enforcing criminal laws can solve most social control problems. A type of full
enforcement directed toward certain problems, such as gang, drug, or traffic offenses, is
called zero tolerance. It is exemplified when officers use every violation for justification
to intervene in situations. It often occurs for targeted problem areas (driving under the
influence) or types of offenses within a jurisdiction (gun violence). The empirical
evidence, to date, fails to support this approach except in limited and rare
circumstances, such as "hot spot" enforcement with directed patrols (Mazerolle et al.
2000), and if the efforts are not maintained after the initial implementation, the targeted
problem usually resurfaces shortly after the zero tolerance approach goes away. Some
recent studies related to school discipline and violence indicate ineffective results from
current zero tolerance policies (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance
Task Force 2008; McNeal and Dunbar 2010).
 

2. The Public Policy Perspective

Public policy, broadly defined, is made up of the rules and regulations legislative bodies
and agencies choose to establish. For example, if drug or spousal abuse requires
regulation, a city council or state legislature may pass a law or an ordinance regarding
domestic violence and drug dealing. Similarly, a bill might be passed to provide
counseling for those charged with spousal abuse or drug use. Both of these actions are
examples of public policy developed to address societal problems (Cochran and Malone
1995). This approach is similar to the legal approach we just discussed; however,
greater emphasis is placed on the political process and on internal agency operations in
the public policy approach.
Policy also is established in administrative organizations such as law enforcement
agencies. A departmental policy regarding citizen complaints might set out the
procedure for reviewing a complaint and detail the possible alternative solutions. Policy
can also be made simply by consistently doing something in a particular way. For
example, some police departments may tend to avoid domestic violence arrests or
ignore concealed weapons found on citizens who have no criminal record. In both
cases, a policy has been constructed and followed, even if it is not written.
Using a public policy approach to study law enforcement is important for a number of
reasons. First, as the field of law enforcement evolves and becomes more proactive in
community problems, more policy will be made at the department level. (A proactive
response to problems is one that anticipates potential problems and tries to prevent the
worst consequences from occurring.) Second, legislative enforcement managers may
negative assistance in enacting policy because of current legal restrictions or because
they lack the proper authority. Therefore, it is important to understand the political
nature of the policy-making process and the importance of defending or justifying a
policy in an appropriate manner.
Formal policy making at the agency level is a function of the executive team. The chief
of police, or the police department/division head is generally the final authority on policy
(although it might be a safety director or city manager). Policy cannot be made without
considering internal procedure and management, legal and political influences, and
community expectations. Internal management issues might include union reactions,
current contract language, and officer morale or resistance. Community expectations
might come from meetings held with civic groups or from public meetings on selected
issues (e.g., curfew enforcement, treatment of juveniles, or rumors of a growing gang
influence). Political influences can relate to local politics and the campaign promises of
elected officials who have some influence over the department's budget. Other forces
that impact policy development and evaluation are pending litigation over the actions
taken by officers and severe fiscal problems that may cause layoffs or a cut in agency
services (Gilmour and Halley, 1994).
Establishing policy within an agency is a three-step process. The first step is the
identification of the need for policy. This often becomes apparent when things do not
function properly or serious problems have developed, such as an officer who used
deadly force when not authorized to do so. However, identification of policy needs also
occurs during agency evaluations and reviews of existing policies when compared to
model (suggested) policy. The professional literature and associations often publish the
experiences of other agencies in terms of policy.
The second step involves implementation, or putting the policy into action. Obviously,
this relates to how the written word is translated into practice by the persons affected;
this means that policy must be properly interpreted, conveyed, and practiced by the
agency s personnel. This often involves meetings and training sessions to explain the
policy, its rationale, and significance. Policy implementation is a complex interaction of
organizational and environmental variables, and frequently policies will fail not because
they were bad policies, but because they were poorly implemented. This is particularly
true in the justice system inasmuch as there are so many different institutions with an
interest in policy outcomes (Lemley and Russell 2002).
The third step in establishing policy is evaluation. In the current law enforcement
environment, it is critical to evaluate the effectiveness of all law enforcement policies to
ensure that the anticipated improvements have actually occurred. Policy effectiveness
can be evaluated through periodic assessment of officer performance, critical incidents,
threatened litigation, selected agency measures, and current vulnerability. For example,
the policy under Tennessee law prior to 1985 permitted police officers to fire upon
fleeing suspects regardless of the threat the suspect posed to officers or others. In
Tennessee v. Garner (471 US l), the United States Supreme Court struck down the
policy, setting a common law "defense of self or others" when facing an "imminent
threat" as the new standard. Subsequent analysis demonstrated that these
changes caused the Memphis Police Department to substantially alter its behavior in
regard to officer-involved shootings (Sparger and Giacopassi, 1992). It should be noted
that the evaluation process also leads to the identification of weaknesses and needs for
future policy; therefore, the process becomes cyclical and permits continuous updating
of policy. Each aspect of policymaking —identification, implementation, and evaluation
—must be understood for an agency to function effectively as we enter the next century
(Fischer 1995).
 

3. The Systems Perspective

Law enforcement can also be viewed from the context of systems theory. This approach
views the entire context (environment) in which an issue exists by analyzing all the
forces or influences (or drivers) impacting on it; in other words, law enforcement or a
particular agency is perceived by analyzing all the influences upon it from the
environment in which it operates. Systems theory is more easily understood if one
understands the concept of subsystems.
As an example, let us consider a person sitting at home in an air-conditioned room. If
the focus of discussion is on the person's body, we could use systems theory to
examine the situation. The body itself is made up of subsystems—the nervous
subsystem, the respiratory subsystem, the cardiovascular subsystem, the skeletal
subsystem, and the digestive subsystem, for example. When all of the subsystems
function properly, the body as a whole functions well. But, if something affects one
subsystem, it can impact the others. If some external force frightens the person, say a
bolt of lightning striking the tree outside the room, various subsystems can be affected:
fright causes the heart to beat faster, breathing may become shallow and rapid,
digestive juices are released by the nervous system, and the stomach may become
upset, or the sudden jolt and noise may additionally cause the body to jump or swing
around quickly, bumping into a table and breaking a finger bone, causing pain. The
subsystems are interconnected, and their functions impact the others.
In organization theory, the "biological model" is often employed to compare
organizational functioning with that of a biological system, such as the ecosystem or the
human body. In this regard, internal and external influences are all considered,
producing a much more robust and complete view of organizational functioning in the
real world.
In this example, the systems theory approach would describe the person's body and the
immediate surroundings of the room and house as the "environment." This approach
attempts to consider the forces or influences of the environment and their impact upon
the entity or issue being considered. Taking a systems perspective to the earlier
discussion of social control and its influences would mean viewing each factor as having
a possible impact on the others as well as an impact on social control. In other words,
the various types of social control and the different types of social, economic, and
political influences that impact it are interrelated.
The best symbol to illustrate the systems approach is that of the atom. The nucleus
becomes the issue being considered (e.g., the concept of social control or the police
agency as an organization), and the orbiting electrons and their paths become the
factors that influence the issue being discussed. Figure 3 is a systems approach
illustration of the concept of social control with its various influence subsystems, and
Figure 4 is a systems representation of a law enforcement agency with its various
subsystems in today's society. All of the subsystems interrelate and influence each
other. When applying this model to policing, try to think of the illustrations as three-
dimensional.
Viewing law enforcement from a systems perspective is important because it ensures
that we consider the impact and influence of other environmental forces in our society. It
assists in understanding the impact and possible implications of decisions and to
anticipate their impact on other subsystems. We say that, in a systems approach,
everything affects everything else. It is a view that makes one consider issues that
otherwise might be overlooked.
In short, the systems approach assists in analyzing issues from a broader perspective,
one in which the agency is just one entity (subsystem) among many in the total
environment. In this example, the total environment includes several city officials such
as the mayor, law director or prosecutor, council members, the fire department,
ambulance/medical services, and the city services director.
 

4. The Global Perspective (or Extended Systems Approach)

The global perspective is an extension of the systems approach. In addition to
recognizing the immediate environmental influences, it gives significant recognition to
world events and the international influences upon the agency. The instability of a
government can cause problems for other countries. Many great societies and nations
have risen and fallen during the last 3000 years.
The global approach is very similar to the systems perspective in that it views the
situation in terms of outside forces and environmental impact. The major difference
between the two is that the global approach places primary focus on the international
influences on the field of policing. The federal law enforcement community, without
doubt, is more involved and concerned with the global approach than are local police,
but this approach is important to all US law enforcement officials because they must be
alert for possible trouble in the United States because of situations in foreign countries.
Terrorist activities are no longer confined to other countries, as witnessed by the 9/11
attacks in the United States. Immediately following the attacks, many US agencies
assigned additional personnel to protect Muslim neighborhoods, businesses, and
mosques. Other examples of international incidents include the bombing of Pan Am
flight 103, returning to the United States from Europe in 1988, killing 270, and the 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City that killed six and injured more
than 1,000.
On March 29, 2010, two female suicide bombers killed 38 passengers in two attacks,
timed 30 minutes apart, on the Moscow subway system; US transit systems were put on
high alert and passengers on New York City and Washington, DC subway systems
were subject to random inspections (CBS/AP 2010). Alerts also were triggered by an
attack on a train in Spain in 2004 that killed 191 people, and by four attacks on the
London subway system in July 2005 that killed 52.
These kinds of events have increased the cautionary measures law enforcement must
take to protect national security and local public safety. For example, since 9/11, the
Transportation Security Agency has replaced private screeners at airports, the
Department of Homeland Security was created, and the number of FBI/state/local joint
terrorism task forces has risen from 34 to 106 (US Department of Justice 2010).
The global approach to social control realizes that law enforcement is a global challenge
and is impacted by global events. While most law enforcement personnel in the United
States are probably not affected greatly by global events, more have been affected in
the last decade than in previous decades. The professional law enforcement officer
understands the importance of world events and their possible impact on policing
domestically.
The global approach to social control realizes that law enforcement is a global challenge
and is impacted by global events. While most law enforcement personnel in the United
States are probably not affected greatly by global events, more have been affected in
the last decade than in previous decades. The professional law enforcement officer
understands the importance of world events and their possible impact on policing
domestically.
 

E. THE APPROACH OF THIS LESSON

The field of law enforcement is one component of the process of social control. The
focus of this text is on crime-related law enforcement services provided by those
agencies commonly referred to as the police. The approach taken in our presentation is
primarily the systems approach, which encompasses all the forces or influences in
society that impact policing. Among those influences are issues related to politics, public
policy, social trends, international events, and national issues. The text describes the
background of the field of policing: where it has been, where it is now, and where future
challenges remain. Basic elements of management and organizational principles are
also included.
The chapters that follow should be viewed from a systems perspective. For example,
the history of policing influences present-day mindsets; it has an effect on public policy,
and it helps shape our culture. Law enforcement was first formed during the emergence
of political influence in the administration of governmental affairs. Police from the 1830s
to the early 1900s were brutal, untrained, and politically controlled. In reaction to that,
policing organizations became more professional and more separated from
communities, and this produced its own set of problems in the 1960s. The result was
the reform movement now known as the "community era," which involved community
policing, problem-oriented policing, and similar themes. These changes influenced the
design of organizations and their relationship with the surrounding environment. Those
structures and external political forces influence the selection and training of law
enforcement personnel and help to further influence the internal cultures of
organizations. History, culture, and politics influence our legal mechanisms that place
limitations on the policing community. All of the social, economic, and political forces
within our complex society affect the type of policing services delivered to the public,
and these forces shape the future challenges and influence the professionalism of law
enforcement personnel. Everything affects everything else; nothing is simple in today's
society. This may sound either too simplistic or horribly complex. Organizations are not
isolated from financial crises (e.g., loss of a major employer in the community), political
events (e.g., a police shooting and subsequent calls for reform), or social change (e.g.,
patterns of migration and immigration). The list of potential sources of influence is
endless, requiring the United States to have a global and systemic perspective.