Paramilitary Police Structure and Community Policing
Whether one uses the term semi-military, quasi-military or paramilitary, the definition, at its most basic, means not quite military. For the purpose of this paper, the term paramilitary, as it relates to police agencies, will be used and defined as a group or organization that forms itself in a military styled hierarchy and operates on the military style command structure (Wikipedia a, 2006).
Origins And Evolution Of Paramilitary Groups
Since the beginning of human kind conflict has existed. Conflict has evolved as humans have evolved. Where conflict was once limited to the competition for food, shelter and mates, it has expanded through greed, prejudice, religion, the desire to gain and hold possessions, land and power, as well as an underdeveloped ability of man to coexist in harmony. Because of all this conflict, as civilizations grew, war became a common term and a frequent visitor. The inevitability of war lead to the growth of armies to protect and defend one group from another. The military also protected the citizenry, enforced law and judicate as prescribed. The military served as the policing force for civil matters in addition to their responsibilities for the protection of the greater whole. Those who ruled were targets and required specialized protectors. As early as the Egyptions, rulers of ancient civilationzatons formed elite paramilitary forces (from the ranks of the military) with the express purpose of protecting the rulers, their families and their immediate domain.
Around 6 A.D. the Romans formed the first organized paramilitary protective group that some refer to as the first police force. Their original charter was to protect Roman cities against fire. They became highly trained and skilled and their power expanded. They worked to establish and enforce fire codes. The group was originally formed from freed slaves, but with its growth and status freedmen joined its ranks and over time it became an elite force with extensive powers (Torrance, 2006).
By the 5th century, policing became the function of clan chiefs and heads of state in Europe. Lords and nobles secured order by appointing representatives to enforce the law and maintain order. The Saxons introduced this policing approach to England. Citizens were divided into groups of ten, called “tythings,” each of which was headed by a tything-man. Each tything was part of a larger group of ten tythings that came under the jurisdiction of the “hundred-man” who reported to the Shire-reeve (Sheriff). Exposure to Norman feudalism changed this system and the tything-man became the parish constable and reported to the Sheriff who became the Justice of the Peace. This system of policing was well established by the 17th and 18th centuries. To this point most “policing” was done without pay. Individuals were appointed to their posts and served for an average of one year. Towns moved toward appointing guilds or groups of citizens to maintain order, as their populations increased. These guilds or groups were paid for their services and known as “The Watch.” They guarded the gates and patrolled the streets at night.
As populations grew and social and economic changes created pressures on the eighteenth century British, the parish constable and “Watch” systems could not fulfill their charge. This led to the formation of the formal police force and eventually to the London Metropolitan Police, the first modern police force that became a model for the police forces in other countries, including the United States.
The evolution of policing in the United States begins with British policing strategies of the times, brought to the Americas by the first settlers and traders. The first Europeans were in a wild new land and were faced with establishing themselves and protecting themselves because there was no government in place upon their arrival to take this responsibility. Because the environment was so raw and lawless, policing was the responsibility of all able-bodied men and boys. As towns and establishments became settled, the Justice of the Peace was installed as the maintainer of the law. Just as in England, as towns grew into cities, the Justice of the Peace was replaced by an organized, paid police force.
With the East Coast settling in and forming cities, expansion into the West reopened a need for yet another approach to policing and the military is once again drawn on to take this charge. The U.S. Army patrolled the frontier with soldiers protecting settlers and trade routes. The Army acted as a police force. Towns that sprang up over the frontier were either lawless or presided over by a Sheriff as the law enforcement official. Sheriffs were usually drawn from the community in which they would serve and often selected for their specific qualities such as fairness (or ruthlessness) or their prowess with a gun. In some instances, Sheriffs were “self-appointed” in that they were simply the strongest and most threatening member of the community and were more self-serving than public serving.
During the Reconstruction Era, after the Civil War, the United States Army occupied and policed the South. It supported courts, protected freed slaves and enforced laws. The soldiers had arrest powers and acted similarly to the current day mode of martial law. When reconstruction ended in 1876, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was passed and removed civilian law enforcement powers from the military (U.S. Northern Command, 2006).
The Boston Police Department, considered the first modern U.S. police force, was founded in 1839 followed by the New York City Police Department founded in 1845. The city of Boston passed a bill in 1838, allowing the city to appoint police officers in a combined day and night patrol of the city. In 1854, the Boston Police Department evolved to model itself after Robert Peel’s Metropolitan London Police (Wikipedia c, 2006).
United States police differ from the police of other Western nations. In other countries, local police are part of a nationally administered force. United States police have always been part of local government and often politically driven. Being formed at the local level has caused the American police force to be installed at different times, with different standards, policies and procedures. City police departments are administered separately from state and county systems and this often creates communication problems (Monkkonen, 2006). In addition to the problems of communication, the political nature of the “beast” can lead to situations of corruption and abuse.
The city police were the first established policing agencies, followed by State agencies. The Texas Rangers (founded 1845) are often said to be the first state police organization. Some have romantic notions about the Texas Rangers being the “good guys,” but they were more infamous than famous. They committed many atrocities, such as wiping out Commanche tribes and killing thousands of Mexicans. This paramilitary group started out as Rangers of the King, guns for hire for cattle baron Richard King. The Pennsylvania Constabulary was the first professional state police agency, but even they were originally formed to assist mine owners in breaking coal strikes.
The California Gold Rush of 1848 prompted the establishment of federal police agencies such as Postal Inspectors, IRS, Border Patrol, Secret Service, and a group that would later become the FBI. Federal investigators were modeled after the operations of the Pinkerton’s Private Security Agency (O’Connor, 2005).
Throughout history the military and the police have often exchanged or shared power and policing organizations have evolved out of the military. This close association and the idea that police are waging war against crime lends to the idea of using military structure and command as the accepted formula for police organizations.
The Formation Of Modern Day Paramilitary Groups
Groups that have been defined as not quite military, either by themselves or those outside their groups, have existed for many years. There is a wide range of such groups that have formed for any number of reasons. There are self-forming groups with a goal to enforce their own code of conduct, such as those formed in Britain in the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s, the Church Lads’ Brigade (CLB), the Catholic Cadet Corps the Methodist Guards and the Presbyterian Newfoundland Highlanders. While these groups were first religious in nature and formed to help promote particular religious mandates to the group members, they were patterned after the discipline and example of the British soldier (Newfoundland, 2006). The Boy Scouts might also fall into this category of relatively benign paramilitary groups. These types of groups, generally, do not promote violence or prejudice.
However, many paramilitary groups promote and engage in violence in an effort to force societal or governmental change and can be racially, religiously or politically biased. Northern Ireland is home to at least ten paramilitary groups that are of the type often reported in the news, such as the Irish Republican Army or IRA. In Latin America there are over 20 groups assigned paramilitary status. There are violent and or aggressive paramilitary groups that are Islamic, African, East Asian, European, Middle Eastern, South Asian and Southeast Asian. No one country has exclusive claim to paramilitary groups of this type (Global Security, 2005). Not to be outdone, the United States has a number of paramilitary groups now and has had throughout its history. The Posse Comitatus would fall into the category of an anti government paramilitary group (Wikipedia b, 2006). U.S. paramilitary groups often base their right to exist on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. These groups often refer to themselves as the unorganized militia sited under Title 10 of the United States Code, section 311 (Cornell, 2005).
Some paramilitary styled policing groups formed by governments, states or municipalities to perform policing duties, such as the gendarmerie of countries operating under the Napoleonic code (i.e., France, Belgium and Austria) (Wikipedia a, 2006) and the police forces of the United States. These groups have a purpose to uphold the law and protect the citizenry from those who would commit criminal acts. These types of paramilitary groups are sanctioned and legal in their existence and operation.
In countires such as New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and other developing areas of the world, the government’s creation and use of paramilitary groups as part of policing strategies has taken on a negative connotation. Many individuals live in fear of such organizations (Facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law, 2006). Some of the most infamous paramilitary groups that were formed by or put into the service of government came out of Germany, the SA (Sturm Abteilung or Storm Troops) and the SS (Schutzstaffel or Elite Echelon)(Rempel, 2006).
Police Functions In Today’s Society
The most basic of functions for police in its broadest sense is to keep order, maintain balance, maintain the status quo, discourage and investigate crimes. Not everyone agrees on the definitions of the functions of the police and some say that the functions of American police are too complex for broad definition. Functions may include but are not limited to: prevention and control of crime, assisting individuals in danger of physical harm, protecting the constitutional rights of individuals, facilitating traffic, assisting those who cannot care for themselves, resolving conflicts, preventing situations from escalating, distributing force when necessary to accomplish functions, and generating a sense of security in the citizenry. It would appear that the police function as “surrogate parents” in the communities where they work. They act as deterrents, facilitators, mediators, protectors, benefactors, controllers and disciplinarians. To say their job is complex is an understatement. In the early years of policing, an officer’s role was fairly well defined and relatively finite. As our society has grown in diversity and volume, as our laws have become more complex, so has the job of the police officer. Police are often called upon to serve in non-traditional ways and are usually the first point of contact in emergency situations, intaking and filtering calls for assistance. They may be pressed into service during disasters, for search and rescue and in the aftermath of an event such as 9/11.
Today’s Police Structure
“Police organizations are tall, hierarchical, quasi-military bureaucracies” (O’Connor, 2004). Tall organizations have many intermediate ranks between the top and the bottom and operate on a defined chain of command. The hierarchical term implies that most of the power resides with a few individuals. The term quasi-military applies because military-style characteristics are being applied, yet not fully. They are bureaucracies because they operate on procedures that are designed for efficiency and minimize or eliminate human interaction and the application of individual decision-making and idea generation. It is important to understand that today’s police agencies are more than just paramilitary groups, they are also bureaucracies.
Paramilitary Characteristics
Police organizations use more strict paramilitary structure mainly in highly specialized units such as SWAT (specialized weapons and tactics), SRTs (special response teams), ERUs (emergency reponse units), but paramilitary structure can be seen and felt throughout the organization. Paramilitary characteristics include:
�· Central command structure
�· Rigid differences among ranks
�· Terminology similar to that of the military
�· Freqent use of commands and orders
�· Strong enforcemnt of rules regulations and dicipline
�· Discouragement of individual creativity
�· Resistance of the system to challenge
Bureaucracy Characteristics
German socialogist Max Weber introduced the idea of bureaucracy as a means to eliminate abuses by management that would lead to inffeciencies. Characteristics of a bureaucracy are similar in many ways to paramilitary characteristics and include:
�· Divisinon of labor by functional specialization
�· Well defined heirarcy of authority
�· System of rules for rights and duties of staff
�· System of procedures for work situations
�· Impersonal relationships between people
Ã?· Promotion and selection by competence (O’Connor, 2004)
What Is Community Policing?
In 1979, Herman Goldstein developed and advanced the idea of Problem Oriented Policing or POP. It encouraged police to think differently about their work and see their role as problem resolver. Goldstein advocated that police identify root causes of problems with an eye toward eliminating or minimizing them, rather than just addressing the outcome. The idea of problem-oriented policing seeks to identify specific problems and work to find creative solutions. The impetus for problem-oriented and later community policing come from the realization that the only way to combat and control crime is through a cooperative effort between the police and the community.
Wherever you find definitions for the term community policing, there are some differences in the verbiage, but the underlying theme is the same – collaboration between the police and the community to identify and solve crime related community problems. The best definition found by this author reads as follows:
“Community policing is a policy and a strategy aimed at achieving more effective and efficient crime control, reduced fear of crime, improved quality of life, improved police services and police legitimacy, through a proactive reliance on community resources that seeks to change crime causing conditions. This assumes a need for greater accountability of police, greater public share in decision making, and greater concern for civil rights and liberties (Freidman, 1996).”
Community policing is decentralized and attempts to operate on the concept of police and citizens working together to find creative solutions for existing community problems, the elimination of fear and maintaining order (O’Connor, 2005).
Paramilitary Structure And Community Policing
According to Community Policing: a Contemporary Perspective, there are ten principles of community Policing (Trojanowicz, 1990). Many of these principles come into direct conflict with the paramilitary and bureaucratic structure of police organizations. One of the most significant is the need for community policing to be change adaptive. Paramilitary and bureaucratic organizations are not change friendly. They are in most cases resistant to change because change creates initial discord, confusion and loss of efficiency. Community policing calls for a high level of communication at all levels and outside of the police organization. Inside paramilitary and bureaucratic structures communication is not open and free flowing. Information is often withheld from members of the organization and members of the community. Paramilitary and bureaucratic organizations discourage human interchange, especially across and outside of “ranks.” Community policing requires a high level of interpersonal skill and interaction in direct contrast.
If police organizations are going to embrace community policing, the existing paramilitary structure must be reevaluated. Internal communications need to reach to the lower level to break rigid chain of command and improve information flow. Supervision should enhance interaction between all levels. Officers should have greater discretion. Police deployment should be proactive, preventive and community-oriented, while maintaining immediate response. Recruitment should emphasize higher education and seek people-oriented, service/solution oriented officers. Training should expand on interpersonal skills and become more community-oriented. Performance evaluation should emphasize measurable community-oriented activities. The reward structure should acknowledge community-oriented efforts; offer tangible raises and intangible recognition for performing according to the objective. Creating a workable partnership will require education, energy, creativity, understanding, and patience from all those involved. The one largest stumbling block to effective community policing programs is the paramilitary/bureaucratic structure that exists today.
