"Power and Restraint: Unveiling the Truth Behind Police Use of Force"



The use of force by law enforcement officers has long been a subject of controversy and debate. Proponents argue that the police must have the necessary tools and authority to protect the public, while critics contend that excessive force often leads to unnecessary injuries or fatalities. In recent years, numerous high-profile cases involving police violence have sparked national conversations about the appropriate balance between power and restraint for those tasked with upholding the law. This essay will examine the complex issue of police use of force, drawing on scholarly research, case studies, and expert analysis to reveal the truth behind this contentious topic (Fyfe, 1988; Alpert & Smith, 1994).


One key aspect of understanding police use of force is recognizing its various levels and applications. According to a widely accepted model developed by researchers Geoffrey P. Alpert and William C. Smith (1994), there are five primary categories: physical control techniques, impact weapons, chemical agents, electronic devices, and lethal force. Each level carries risks and benefits for law enforcement personnel and suspects involved in altercations. Furthermore, determining which appropriate level depends on threat assessment, officer training, departmental policy guidelines, and legal standards (Alpert & Dunham, 2004). Thus, a comprehensive understanding of police use of force requires considering these multiple dimensions.


The prevalence of excessive force among law enforcement agencies remains difficult to quantify due to inconsistent data reporting practices across jurisdictions. While some departments voluntarily submit information regarding instances of use-of-force to federal databases like the FBI's National Use-of-Force Data Collection program (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] n.d.), participation is not mandatory—resulting in incomplete data sets that complicate efforts to assess trends accurately or identify potential solutions. Nonetheless, research conducted by criminologist James Fyfe (1988) found that improper or excessive uses of force were more likely within departments where officers received inadequate training or where organizational cultures encouraged aggressive behavior.


Efforts to address police use of force must also consider the role of racial and ethnic disparities. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, Black individuals are more likely than their white counterparts to be killed by law enforcement (Buehler, 2017). Additionally, researchers have found that implicit biases among officers can contribute to disproportionate uses of force against minority populations (Correll et al., 2007; Sadler et al., 2012). As such, any comprehensive approach to addressing this issue requires examining individual officer decision-making processes and broader systemic factors contributing to these disparities.


One potential solution for reducing the excessive use of force is implementing evidence-based de-escalation techniques within law enforcement agencies. These methods, which prioritize communication skills and nonviolent conflict resolution tactics over physical confrontation, have been shown to reduce injuries sustained by both police officers and suspects during altercations (Compton et al., 2014; Engel et al., 2020). Training programs that promote de-escalation strategies and regular evaluations and reinforcement of these principles can empower law enforcement personnel with the tools necessary to resolve conflicts to minimize harm while ensuring public safety.


In summary, understanding the truth behind police use of force necessitates grappling with multiple dimensions:

  • acknowledging various levels and applications
  • accounting for inadequate data reporting practices
  • recognizing racial and ethnic disparities at play
  • exploring potential solutions like de-escalation training programs

Engaging in open dialogue about these complexities and striving toward evidence-based reforms grounded in research findings may strike a more equitable balance between power and restraint for those charged with protecting our communities. Ultimately, achieving this goal will require collective commitment from law enforcement professionals, policymakers, scholars, and citizens—working together towards greater transparency and accountability within our criminal justice system.


References:


Alpert, G.P. & Dunham, R.G. (2004). Understanding police use of force: Officers, suspects, and reciprocity. Cambridge University Press.


Alpert, G.P., & Smith, W.C. (1994). How reasonable is the reasonable man?: Police and excessive force. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(2), 481–501.


Buehler, J.W. (2017). Racial/ethnic disparities in the use of lethal force by US police, 2010–2014. American Journal of Public Health, 107(2), 295-297.


Compton M.T., Bakeman R., Broussard B., et al. (2014). The police-based crisis intervention team (CIT) model: I. Effects on officers' knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Psychiatric Services, 65(4), 517–522


Correll, J., Park, B., Judd C.M., & Wittenbrink B. (2007). The influence of stereotypes on decisions to shoot. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1102-1117.


Engel R.S., McFee D.R., & Isaza G.T.(2020). Deescalation in policing: A systematic review examining training effects on officer safety and suspect compliance outcomes [Unpublished manuscript]—School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University-Newark; Center for Policing Research and Policy.


Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. Use-of-force data collection program [n.d.] Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/use-of-force


Fyfe J.J.(1988). Police use of deadly force: Research and reform. Justice Quarterly ,5(2):165–205


Sadler M.S., Correll J., Park B., & Judd C.M.(2012). The world is not black and white: Racial bias in shooting in a multiethnic context. Journal of Social Issues68(2), 286–3

Comments