..0I0. 0.. . 0. .. . 0. .........0. . .-. rv—‘wv‘ A...“ E OF FORCE AN EXPLORATORY STUDY 9 Degree of M. '8. STATE UNIVERSITY ALLEN PIERCE POLICE US Thesis for th MICHIGAN . .0... . 0;“: ...: .000 0:2 . 0.. ... . 0. .0. u I ..I. .0 . .. .I . 0.90 . V... ....0 .. I. 0. 0..v. . . . . 0... . ... . . . ... , . . ...0 _ 0 ..........0. _. ... . 0. v .. _ 0. ... 0 ... ... . .. . .. .. .. ..... ..t.. ... _ .. ...... I 0. 0 . . 0 . ...0.. . . . 0 . .- 0.... .. 0 . _ ._ . ..0 . _ 0 0 0 .. . . . . . .0 0 . . . . 0 . 0 . _ . .. . .0 .o I . . . . . a .. 0 . 0. . 4 . v . . . _ _ 0 . a. . 0. . .. fi . . I. . . 0 .. 0 O 0 . . . . . . . . . ...5.0.0V.1.. ...0... 0.0.... 0.....00.0..\09.00 50.50.... 00*. &.w . 5v... ..........0.... . . ..I..0.. . ...0 .00.... 0 0 O .0 ..0. .I.. ......3... J0I .V\OOI'O 0. ...... 01...”. ..I0I. _ .00 .o_' .0. . IIOI. I .. I . I0! 0. ...“I. 4.0 . 0.000_.0.. . . 4.00. J. 0_4¢J.00. .00.... ... .. . ....r... ”biot/vir I. 0 . .0.0....0 l ... ,. .. ......I....r.¢1.a-.00’IIIL o '00, .000 00u'0 0. .7 0.0.0.? 0.0 0... I . . .... 0.1“ 0 v .. .. .0 ..(. 0 I . .. V . . . “3.44 0 0. 0. .0 .0.. f . . .. .. 0 t . ........0. .. ..0 9......qu . _. .. . . . .....z... _ ...7.0 My.) 0u0r . . A . . I. “I: . . 0 ...J 0 II 0341.0. . 00 .. V . 0 . ... 0!...VII.0.. . . .. , . 5:9”:la 4” I . . 0 0. . . v .. .. . ...... 0.. .. ... ... . . . . .. . . KWHI’001J.WM.O..J...m . . . . 0. .. . . I .I0.00I .0 If. ... .I . ..I. .. . (00"...ua! 00IIv004.)00r.I0 ”WNW 0T..ILA.1..-0 . 0 . 0 0 I. 0 . .. 01V I (j, o 01%38.‘ . o. .. 0. 5.000..’...:..I .cI-ur0I.' 0 N“: .. I . I . r0. . . .... .. .I. :00fv. 0.0 0.009.. I..O'0Jn00“9’...r.tIH0Ir.£ .0. ..t .....0 _ I I . ..00. .0 . ..4’0 0 0 0...: 0 firs-(0": 'IJH1QIIP"? I g0)0 '01., . i . . ... . .....H... . 0.. .I 0:0.01 0 .0 0/ ......_....I.0 ..vfl'.l.v J“. Jrvl/Ufl‘bilwfiiwffi .l . . I .00 0. .... 000 .....V... 0 .0 .../”pl. 0 . I0. I 0’00 who... .0. . ..Ogmrid 0". .. .... ....II ......0.....0)I.u-.v..Irv..I..r .0...I. ..10.I7In'§..' 0Q. . I . . M. 000.00. . .0. 0... o .. .. .0. 0 cI.0.J 0.4.0..” ..0J0Irafl 0.00.0.rPF00 400.9:0rl4‘ . .. . - ..II . .. o . .0 0. 0....._.oJr.0'.'K...‘I.._¢ .....("I-.0.JOI¢40..P¢. (tn'J‘ . . . 4 .. 0 ...-... (J. ... .rro.t....0.. 0&0 .0.th . . . I. 0 .0.. 00V. o..l.’ ..l000004I..r 0. ' .. 0 .... .. .. I 0.. . ..0 I: . “00 .0.. . 0 .. r...'._0 0. .. .IV0'..0.00.M.ID0 ; a . . .0 . ..I~.I/J _ . ... .. ......0.0..0.0000/._..0. 0..’UI50.0.F..¢.. II. a . .. I I . .. . I. V0.07 I00... . .. . 0 .I . ... 0r .0l._I.. . ...r.0“.,...r0 .. 0.00 I. I. 0. . . a 0’0. 0.._I . . . . . ... .0.»... . .. . 1.573.900... . .v'f. I , .0 .... ... 02". . 30 V. .../0.0.0... [.001.0a..I. . ... . .0/..v. crur . . 0 I 0 0 . I . .4 “We . . .12 .vtc’a 01—0 0.. . . .t 4 0 00 I0. (0 ...l 0 ..a «I .0. I I _ . 0 . olef: . . .I .r I . . Ilo00rv0_9 . 0. . 0' 4 . (I . ...0. ..0 ..v' ..0’1.00 o . {.JvII. .. . I 0 v I ’0'.’00.4..0N0¢..J _ . .rv . ..0J..V...0I 0 r o 0 9.0..O'I' . 0 0 I I I 0000‘ . . .. . . 0.11....0..ll.r.. 0.. r0 .. . 0.; .. _ .Irrrffx 0i..r.0.0. . . . I2.. .-4. _ 0 . . . . 0.000.:I0.It 0 v. .0 .. . 0. 0’0Ir0..l. . .. . I. .. ..(Vf.0.v0..f.0&.. . .. ... .0.,IJ0I0...CI. .0. I . . ... 00 014.0. 00. 0.. . .. 0.]! .II VI 00 .40 . ,I . 000’.III-\I . 02! I. r ..I 0 I. 0.00.0000 I4.0\ .01 __ I .0. .... ... IV 0 ...0, . .. . ... '0 . . . .0040 t.".c.0.”l.0.101c KY’041... p. .r .. ...A .. . ..v .. ...... ...I. .00.0..0. ”#130. 0505.17.04” . .0 . ...0 I I ..o. ...... . 0004.0. 0 4:. 000010.000 . . .0 . .. .. .II 1.. . 10.30.00.1rvf7rl.0..l¢0 . . . .. I 00 . .... . 0I .f 040 0 0. ....II’U..YLV0.I0W I O I r I I . . ... I . . . J I... . .I...I.....o..0..r.l.$..ar!a5 . . . 0 .. . I ... 0 0. ...a. . 0:. .0 I .l‘....!v\v . .. 0. ...I' It . 0 . 0 0 I00. . 0 0'00 1.. IIIoll. ‘0’ . . .0 .00- ...74 . I. 0 Ir . 0 0... I I . . I( I I 0 . .. I 0101 .Arn . . 4.- . ....0 .I r I I 1. (00.0. . I . 0v .0 . 00. 00.01 . 0: II . . .. .. . 0 I .0 I0 .. .0 . n I . O _ _ 00"... IV. 0. . “J..IA 04.001 0 I .'.0. . . Ir. . . . 00 IoIa II! I 1.. I . 0 .l I . . .{I0 .rb .It 0 I r I I v I. [.0 I ‘0. .I . 0! J.I.I0 I .0. . . . ’ J 0. I I 00 I . . 0/ II I I 0 _. . . . 0-. 00‘ t. I. 00.I ’I. .00 III 0 004 0 I: .(I 0. I.I(4 ..00. 0 It I 0 .0 | . I . . 0(. 0.. . 0 _ I 0 .0. I . . I. )0 0.. 00 S. . . r.. 0 . J 0 I1' 0‘ r 0 a I A . . I. I... 0 . . . . .0 . 0 0 .0 r0 _ . 0 O '0 0 . u. -100 0 A . I . v 0 .I a .0' I I. .. 0 II. I 00 .1 II. II I I . . I I I . 0 I. .A ' v I I 0 0—0 V U I I o o . V 0 0 0 J 0, 0 . b I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I0 I .II. 00 .0 0\ 0 .I I ... I .. . A. I 0 . . I o . . I . . .0 I I . 0 . 0 0 . CI Va I 00 I 0 I .I I. 0 O 0 l 0 ' I . 0 ' I . . o I. I 0 I . . . . I. I. I .I. 0 I. . . I I 0 r. I o '0 ... 4' 0 . I c 1 . .........£..$Q§k§.......Hfiikxg A}... $.61 W! \H W“ 1 1293 1 \I\\\MM\\W WW . [:2] _______ L--_- g' ' 'MA-IGYO’ZS AWEEQQQ 000-, c7 2005\ //~!/ EAR 0 B 2000 POLICE USE OF FORCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY BY C. Allen Pierce AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS ' Submitted to the College of Social Science Michigan State University. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 1970 &AMW%%MR APPROVED: ‘grl John H. McNamara. Chairman gzééfiaé; Prof. A. F. Brandstatter /7 /’ (j -' /fl / 05% fi/CVZC/él) (fir. Victor G. Strecher ’ ii ABSTRACT OF THESIS The objective of the study was to look at "police violence" in a way that one might better understand the what, the who, and some of the whys of this phenomena. The study explored and developed some hypotheses in the area of police violence, but was not intended to offer specific solutions to these problems. The analysis of data utilized in this study was at the exploratory level and secondary in nature. The original study was conducted in the Police Academy of the New York City Police Department, and the data were gathered in the academy over three years, between 1960- 1963. The subjects in the study constituted a sample of those men entering the New York City Police Academy between those years. Approximately 700 recruits gave responses on at least one questionnaire each, and two groups of men were tested on three separate question- naires. These latter groups were tested at the beginning of their training, at the end of their training, and after one or two years' experience on the street. The iii main data-gathering instrument utilized was the self— administered questionnaire. The analysis was obtained by the use of frequency distributions, and the Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient. The major criterion variable utilized in the correlations was the "index of force", which was designed as an index of the officers' willingness or proneness to utilize force. A central thesis of this study is that violence may be a legitimate mode of communication within some subcultures of our society. Because many citizens with whom the police work are within these subcultures, the use of violence-may be a necessary technique in the per- formance of police duties. When viewed from this perspective, the problem of police violence does not appear to be quite so serious as it might to a non- violent viewer. The analysis of this study indicates that a large share of police violence may stem from a lack of empathy rather than a violent intent on the part of police personnel. The lack of this basic skill in the officers is such that they quite unintentionally provoke violent iv encounters. The presence of men who are inclined toward violence, "violent men", on police forces explains only a small number of the incidents genenally identified as police violence. The results further indicate the inherent short- comings of determining behavior through reported attitudes. The problem of police violence involves behavior, not attitudes. For this reason, further research on police violence should utilize actual behavior rather than attitudenal indices. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to express appreciation to those who assisted him in this study: To Dr. John H. McNamara whose assistance and criticism made the total production possible. To numerous colleagues who spent many hours discussing the problems of police violence: Kenneth Christian, John Snyder, David Epstein, Nelson McAskill. And most of all, to my wife, Genia, who proof- read all manuscripts and typed all drafts of the thesis. POLICE USE OF FORCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY BY C. Allen Pierce A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 1970 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . A Violent Society . . . . . . Illegal Police Violence Defined Police Officers and Violence. Continuum of Violence . . . Subculture of Violence. . . Dilemma Of Physical Control . A Violent Man . . . . . . . Fear of Injury and Status Loss Among Peers . . . . . . . . . . Personal Affront. . . . . . Quest For Authority . . . . . Available'Data--The Variables Proneness Or Willingness To Use of Gun. . . . . . . . . Assaulted By Citizens . . . ,/ Danger Perception . . . . . Self-Rating Physical Prowess. Escaping Felon. . . . . . . 10 12 14 17 18 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 CHAPTER Quest For Authority . Interpersonal Items . Attitude Scales . . . II. METHODS . . . . . . . . . Original Study. . . . . Subjects. . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . Instrument. . . . . . Measurements. . . . . Statistical Analysis. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . Force and Miscellaneous Index of Force. . . . Use of Gun. . . . . . Escaping Felon. . . . Assaulted By Citizen. Perception of Danger. Variables Self-Rating Physical Prowess. . Quest For Authority and Interpersonal Variables . . . . . . Quest For Authority . Helps If Citizen Thinks Police Officer Angry . . . . . . . viii PAGE 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 28 28 31 32 32 32 33 37 39 44 47 49 49 51 CHAPTER Predicting Citizens' Behavior . Police Officers Escalate Problems Difference In Handling People . Attitude Scales II F" Scale Anomia Scale. IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . Research Methods and Procedures . Summary and Conclusions . Society and Violence. . Police Officers and Violence. . Interpersonal Skills. . Miscellaneous Variables Recommendations For Further Research. . Empirical Observation . A Specific Factor of Possible Relationships Hypotheses. BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES. ix PAGE 55 57 6O 63 63 66 7O 7O 71 71 73 74 77 80 80 80 81 82 88 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Questionnaire Administered to Police Recruits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 II. Use of Gun—~Frequency Distribution. - - - - 35 III. Use of Gun--Frequency Distribution. . . . . 36 IV. Rank-Order Correlation Use of Gun/Index of Force. . . . . . . . 37 V. Escaping Felon--Frequency Distribution. . . 38 VI. Rank-Order Correlation Escaping Felon/Index of Force. . . . . . 40 VII. Rank-Order Correlation Assaulted By Citizens/Index of Force . . 41 VIII. Assaulted By Citizens--Frequency Distribution..............42 XIX. Injuries—-Frequency Distribution. . . . . . 45 X. Rank-Order Correlation Danger Index/Index of Force (Combined Injuries and Deaths). . . . 46 XI. Rank-Order Correlation Self-Rating Physical Prowess/Index of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 TABLE XII. XIII. XIV. XVII. XVIII. XIX. Rank-Order Correlation Quest For Authority/Index of Force . . Rank-Order Correlation Helps If Citizen Thinks Police Officer Angry/Index of Force. . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution Helps If Citizen Thinks Police Officer Angry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rank-Order Correlation Predicting Citizens' Behavior/Index of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution Officers Escalate the Problem. . . . . Rank-Order Correlation Police Officers Escalate Problem/Index of Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Difference In Handling People--Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rank-Order Correlation Difference In Handling People/ Index of Force 0 C C C O C O O O O O O O O 0 xi PAGE 51 52 54 55 59 60 61 62 xii TABLE PAGE XX. Rank-Order Correlation Attitude Scales F-Scale/Index of Force. . . . . . . . 64 XXI. Rank-Order Correlation Attitude Scales Anomia Scale/Index of Force . . . . . 67 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Many police in particular instances, and particular officers in many instances, use excessive force, some- times defined as illegal violence. We need not look far to show that police violence is a reality and a problem. However, one must first understand the problem before he can work at its solution. The objective of this study is to look at "police violence" in a way that we might better understand the what, the who, and some of the whys of this phenomena. This study will explore and develop some hypotheses in the area of police violence. but it is not intended to offer specific solutions to these problems. The first step in understanding a particular police behavior is to look at the setting or background in which the police organization exists, i.e., the larger society it serves. Therefore, the first section in Chapter I will be a discussion of that society and violence. A short discussion will then follow of the legal implications of the policeman's license to violence. The next section is the development of the author's first thesis regarding police familiarity with violence A discussion follows as to the origination and support of violence within police systems. The fourth section is an introduction to the "dilemma of physical control" a concept that only one who has faced this dilemma can appreciate. It is the author's intention that some insight may be given into what may be the greatest dilemma facing police officers. Also included in this section is a discussion of factors which may have an influence on how police officers will respond to character- istic dilemmas of physical control. The next section will be a discussion of the relationship of an officer's need for respect and authority and his related proneness or willingness to utilize force. Thelast section of this chapter will be a brief description of those variables examined in this study. A Violent Society This society can hardly be considered one which unambiguously condemns violence. It is a society which under particular circumstances has condoned violence while under others condemns it. It is a society which 3 has taught that violence must be met by violence. It is a society which has taught that certain things must be honored, defended and that violence is an acceptable method of defending these things. It is, moreover, not the majority of society's concern as to how much or what kind of force or violence that may be used, but for what, when, and under what circumstances. For example, if a man's wife (girl friend) or mother is insulted, society expects the man to take action, and violent action might very likely be considered the most appropriate, i.e., short of murder or maiming. A man has the right by law, to defend his home and his family be any means available. He often needs only to show that the intruder's action frightened him or gave him cause to believe his family or property was in jeopardy. It is curious to the author that upon talking to some of the most vehement spokesmen against violence, those expressing abhorrence of it will generally agree that violent action is sometimes appropriate. It isn't a matter of all violence being wrong, but a matter of the circumstances under which it is considered wrong. 'When we consider this underlying theme of violence in our society, it may be surprising that our police use as much restraint as they do. The public has given license to the police so that they will get the job done. "The prime concern of a major segment of the public is probably crime in the streets, not police brutality."1 They, the public, may really not want to see, or even hear all the gory details, but to just believe or feel that the job is being done. This point is succinctly expressed by Lee Rainwater in his article “Revolt of the Dirty—Workers."2 Illegal Police Violence Defined Some authors have asserted that all violence by the police is illegal, and therefore, a violation of statute law. This is truly a fallacy. The police are really the only agency of our government other than the military and some correctional personnel who have license to violence. _By law, the police are given the_discretion ...—...,“ to take violent action against certain individuals in ‘IV‘M ._——-—‘r"' “'"" .. _ -HH.-_ certain specified circumstances. By law, most acts of police violence are not illegal, but legal and further, 1Nelson M. MacAskill, "Police Brutality" (unpublished research outline, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Michigan. 1969). zLee Rainwater, "Revolt of the Dirty-Workers," Trans- Action, November, 1967. expected and supported by the society. The question then is at what point in the execution of a police officer's legal use of violence, does that violence suddenly become illegal? Some would say, "when more -..F-IJ‘ force than was necessary is applied." Another might say, that "when force changes from defensive to offen— sive."' (Of course, the best defense may well be an offense.) There seems to be little disagreement that force or violence which takes on a primarily punitive nature is illegal by law. Many feel that the end might J?“ ...-r. .._ justify the_means, i.e., the goal might better be achieved by "street corner justice;" however, it is none the less H‘. _ M—e... ._ illegal. This author accepts that definition of illegal violence which states that only that force is legal which is necessary to effect the physical control of a subject who is under legal arrest. Anything in excess is illegal. Police Officers and Violence Continuum of Violence: The actual behavior of police officers, their actual use of force or indulgence in violence varies a great deal among officers. The willingness or proneness of officers to use force may well be ranked on a continuum, i.e., from unwilling or rarely utilizing force to very willing or frequently utilizing force. One might assume that most police officers will fall in the middle of the continuum. neither unwilling to use force nor willing to use force frequently in carrying out their tasks. In relation to middle class mores, the police officer will undoubtedly rank higher on this continuum. However, in relation to the general public with whom the police officer works. he may well rank similarly. Many authors who have written on police violence have stressed the influence of the subculture of police as that which generates or propagates violence in police performance of their tasks. This author sees the influ- ence of the subculture of police as containing two major influencing factors. The first is the internal, or system, influence, and the second is the external, or exposure experience, influence. .It would be valuable to be able to measure separately the effects of these two influencing factors, however, the effect of the external influence, exposure experience, will tend to reinforce the system, i.e., the internal factor to support that behavior which the external experience supports. This circular feedback may well integrate these two factors in an inseparable manner, hence making it impossible to analyze them separately. Let us now look at some of these external influencing factors. 3 of the police and their contin- The authority role uous confrontations, gives them a great deal more opportunity than does the middle-class citizen to exercise this willingness or proneness to use force. This factor. the familiarity with violence, must indeed influence a police officer's willingness or proneness to use force. Many of his dealings with people involve violent acts. either at the time of the officer's presence, or shortly before the officer's arrival. This familiarity will tend to minimize the negative valence of violence in the mind of an officer. More important, the officer becomes aware of the relative insignificance of a "physical heating." The psychological humiliation of beingbeaten is undoubtedly much more traumatic to many than the physical aspects of that beating. One must remember 3Skolnick sees the policeman's role in two different variables, i.e., "danger and authority." Jerome H. Skolnick, Justice Without Trial (New York: ‘John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 44. that few people have died from the blows of a police officer's night stick or blackjack. Rest assured that police officers know this, and if they want to kill or maim, they would use their guns. Subculture of Violence: Another aspect of police familiarity with violence is the existence of a "subculture of violence" within the larger society. Too often the critics of police violence are unfamiliar- with the mores of those people to whom police force or violence is a response. To some people violence is a true and legitimate form of communication. These pe0ple are also those who are dependent on the police for assistance and intervention into their personal lives. This affords many opportunities for police to deal with and communicate with these people. Within a "subculture of violence," a physical beating may be status promoting. i.e., when beaten by a superior opponent. (RIt takes a 'real man' to take a physical beating.") There is little doubt that many victims of police violence have controlled and caused, with some degree of intent, their physical beatings. An outsider witnessing force or violence in this setting would surely take offense. Yet to the person or people involved, this mode of communication is both understood and expected. A well known scholar in the correctional field half humorously once commented, "many times you just gdtto hit them to get their atten- tion." One might draw a parallel using verbal communica- tion as an example of the above. A person with a limited vocabulary, using adverbs and adjectives which are mostly profane, may well take offense, and likely not understand a verbal communication made up of highly sophisticated or abstract language. The adage "when in Rome, do as the Romans do," may well be a fitting slogan in understanding police use of force and violence in some of our more violent subcultures. The following quote, taken from the book The Courage Of His Convictions by Parker and Allerton, contains the words of a habitual offender describing the environment in which he was raised as a youngster, and well illustrates the above point: "Violence is in a way like bad language-- something that a person like me's been brought up with, something I got used to very early on as part of the daily scene of childhood, you might say. I don't at all recoil from the idea. I don't have a sort of inborn dislike of the thing, like you do. As long as I can remember I've seen violence in use all around me--my mother hitting the children; my brothers and sister all whacking our mother, or other 10 children; tfle man downstairs bashing his wife and so on.“ Reiss, in an article on police brutality, defines wallsszu-l_ the meaning of brutality. He states that violence or physical force is only one of six police practices which are listed as the most common forms of brutality. He defines "police brutality" as situations in which citizens perceive themselves or others as having not been treated with the full right and dignity owed to citizens in a democratic society.5 Citizens, particularly ghetto residents, would not interpret that violence or force used by police as brutality if they perceive the circumstances as legitimate, i.e., a "fair" and legal arrest of a person guilty of an accepted criminal statute. There is little doubt that they expect and will support that violence and the use of force in these "legitimate" circumstances. Dilemma Of Physical Control There is inevitably that point in the administration 4Anthony Storr, Human Aggression (Atheneum, New York: 1968). p. 47. 5Albert J. Reiss, "Police Brutality--Answers to Key Questions,¥ Trans-Action, July/August 1968, p. 10. 11 of justice when the law enforcement agent must take into physical custody the violator of one of its laws. The real dilemma lies in the fact that not every citizen who has violated the law will submitt willingly to this physical custody. Another, and maybe even more important aspect of this dilemma of physical control, is when the violation is so minor that the officer planned only to warn the violator of his illegal action and tells him to stop. At this point the violator may tell the policeman off. uttering insulting remarks, profanity, etc., and refuse to obey the police officer's orders by continuing the illegal behavior. The officer has now established, first that the individual will undoubtedly resist any attempts to put him in physical custody, and second if the officer does make this attempt, violence will ensue. However, what will happen if he doesn't require the legal behavior and enforce the law by arresting this individual? Can he expect even more blatant "disrespect" for the law from him? Is the officer neglecting his duties, i.e., to enforce the law, at the expense of citizens who may be this offender's victims? Will these citizens then lose respect for the police because of his inaction? 12 What will his fellow officers think of him if he backs down, and rejects the challenge of the violator? These thoughts; and probably many more are weighing heavy on the officer's decision to take his violator into physical custody. Unfortunately, few policemen are highly skilled in judo or other sophisticated defensive tactics, and, therefore, they must resort to that force with which they are most familiar. Herein may lie the difference between the violent and the non—violent policeman. Will that force which he uses be of a violent nature, or non-violent? Will he meet the challenge of this citizen in an aggressive, offensive manner or in a non-aggressive, defensive one? There are several factors which may influence the officer's response: (1) is the officer predisposed to violence, "a violent man?"; (2) what are the chances, in the officer's eyes, of being injured?; (3) how does the officer view his peers' feelings about what action he takes?; and (4) how does he view the public's attitude toward the action he takes? A Violent Man: When studying violent behavior one notes that some people appear much more able or prone to commit violent acts than others. These people stand out from the rest of the society because of their violence. 13 Even within a subculture of violence they will be notice— ably more violent. They go further in their acts of violence, often mercilessly beating their victims. There have been cases where the violent man increased the assault on a victim after the victim pleads for mercy or fails to fight back. Hans Toch, in his book Violent Men, has identified and classified violence-prone persons into 10 categories in his typology of violent men. "A violent man" as used in this thesis would fall into one or any combination of the categories in Toch's typology. "A violent man," of course, would be capable of "violent behavior." "Violent behavior," for the purpose of this paper, requires the mental awareness of the perpetrator of the violence he is committing. The violence should inflict visible signs of the damage that is being done for example, opening. wounds, breaking bones, or eliciting utterances of cries or groans of pain. No better awareness could be achieved by a perpetrator of the personal damage he is doing than by striking the victim's face. The face is also very vulnerable as the nose bleeds easily, eyes blacken and cut easily, the lips puff up and bleed with the slightest blow, etc. One would expect, therefore, that the violent 14 man would be much more likely to use the face or head as his target for violence. "A violent man," who also happens to be a policeman, might be no exception to this theory. One very real exception to this above theory. of course, is the violent police officer who must protect himself from brutality charges, and therefore, leaves no visible marks on his victims. It is important to note that the violent man and violence to which we are here alluding is a great deal different from that violence which occurs during times of war. Those men who seek the particular military units which must fight the face to face battles may also be violent men. Of course, many men seek these same military units for entirely different purposes. Fear Of Injury and Status Loss Amonngeers: The police occupation has evolved many unwritten rules which may assure survival under the conditions which they operate. Officers will always assist a fellow officer who is in trouble or in need of assistance. It is important to note here that there are probably no worse negative sanctions proferred by an officer's peers than those he would receive if he could not be depended upon by a fellow officer who is in trouble. There is an unwritten 15 rule among police officers, that "you are never put down, no matter to what extent you must go to prevent it." This rule and probably others are rooted in years of survival conditioning. Skolnick sees the policeman's role as including a 6 He further feels that variable or element of danger. policemen may very well enjoy this pOSsibility of danger, particularly its associated excitement.7 The author would not take exception to this hypothesis except to emphasize that, although related, there is a significant difference between a thrilling experience and a terror- izing one. Policemen are seldom terrorized by their experiences, and if they were, they would undoubtedly remove themselves from this threat. Therefore, few policemen see this danger role as fearful but instead as thrilling, or accept it as a routine aspect of the occupation. This particular aspect of a policeman's role would also appeal to his masculinity needs. This author believes that if there are any common or similar Skolnick, 22. git. 7Ibid.. pp. 47-48. 16 fraternal characteristics among policemen, it is the de- sire to portray an image of masculinity and bravery, the antithesis of feminity and cowardice. Some authors, particularly those of classical Freudian persuasion have explained these traits as an expression of latent homo- sexuality. Whatever its source, there is little doubt that the group membership requims bravery of policemen. This quest for bravery may be explained as one's over- compensating for feelings of fear and cowardice, a very normal reaction to fright-elicitng experiences. Tools have been provided to give the officer an advantage in the violent situation. The nightstick is often affectionately referred to by police patrolmen'as their equalizer. A policeman's view is adequately summarized by the following "advice from an old-timer": ”There are a lot of ways to use your nightstick, kid. If you see a fight on your post, first thing to do is to drop your stick to the pave- ment. It'll make a lot of noise. By the time you get there the two parties usually will have made a hasty peace. A man carries a stick, doesn't mean he has to use it only one way. But, thank God, there are still cops with courage enough to use a stick in the way some people find objectionable. There's a time for that too. Why: 'cause he uses a stick he's a sadist? They want him to use his hands: . . . Do you think you can whip everyone on your beat with your bare hands? Then you ought to be 17 fighting on television: . . .It's not the Marquis of Queensbury rules that work out there: remember that. So common sense: a smart cop uses his stick. When necessary: These days a civilian has trouble walking the streets. Without those cops the bums wouldn't even make room for anybody. They'd push every- one in the gutter. . . Sadists? How many of those college graduate citizens -- who do all the squawking about humanity -- how many of them ever had to deal with a mob? ‘They never even heard what a mob sounds like: Yet they want to sit and judge us! Everybody wants to judge us these days! And they'll judge you too when the time comes. What the hell do they know about a mob? No bastard knows any- thing except the poor cop whose ass is on the line. A mob is the ugliest animal in the world: You just try toaquit them by reading something out of a boo ." Personal Affront: One study has shown that very frequently when officers have resorted to violence that they have taken personal affront to the action or words of the citizens involved. Often the citizen will literally challenge the officer to fight. In these cases it seems as long as the officer can remain impersonal. maintain a professional demeanor. he will seldom resort to violence. This further stresses the influence of the individual's personality, frustration tolerance. and whether he is " a violent man." One whose physical prowess, or peer status, is threatened by one of these 8Gene Radano, Walking_the Beat (New York, 1968), p. 96. 18 encounters, either realistically or only in his mind, may be one who would be much more likely to take personal affront. If he is "a violent man" then violence is that much more likely to ensue. Hans Toch in his book comments that "violence feeds on low self-esteem, and it thrives on a sense of inadequacy."9 guest For Authority One of the most frequent causes of the dilemma of physical control is the quest by police to gain respect. or in retaliation to a perceived lack of respect. It is of value here to note the difference between officers' opinions as to what constitutes a show of respect or a granting of authority. Some officers may equate respect with cooperation, a recognition by the citizen of the officer's problem or position and, hence, a granting of authority to the officer. Other officers may equate respect with fear, and therefore. see the granting of authority only‘out of fear. These officers would attempt to gain their authority and respect through intimidation. The problem for the officer arises when the citizen is 9Toch,l22. cit., p. 223. 19 unwilling to be intimidated, and as a matter of issue becomes offended and calls the officer's bluff. The officer is then put in the awkward position of having to back up his bluff. An encounter which the officer originally intended to be a warning, then ends up in a forceful arrest, accompanied by violence, only because the citizen showed "disrespect" for the officer, or the law. This is often explained by police officers as the only way they could gain the required authority that they feel they need to command a serious situation. Police characteristically feel they lack authority and there is little doubt that force is often used to gain this authority. Westley has shown that police violence is frequently a response to a challenge to the policeman's authority.10 Closely related to the forementioned quest for authority is a personality characteristic which showed up in a number of Toch's "violent men." This is a tehdency to corner or offend victims immediately upon an encounter, leaving them no route of escape. This may be 10William A. Westley, "Violence and the Police," American Journal of Sociology, July 1953, pp. 34-41. 20 illustrated by one of the forementioned types of officers, who in attempting to intimidate a subject into compliance, actually corners the subject, leaving him only two alter - natives: to comply at the expense of humiliation in front of his peers or to give battle, an experience which may be more rewarding in light of the possible status achievement he may gain even though receiving a physical beating. When this form of behavior is a characteristic of a violent man, and/or directed at a violent man, then the encounter must become violent. In the same theme, if neither of the parties is a violent man, then the encounter would remain at the verbal level and may be but an example of poor police-citizen relations. AvailablgTData -- The Variables The study primarily involves relating selected variables to police officers' willingness or proneness to use force. There are many variables which may be related to an officer's willingness or proneness to use force. However, due to the breadth of this study and the nature of the available data, only a limited number of variables will be used in the present analysis. The following is a 21 brief description of each of those variables used. Proneness Or WillipgnesgyTo Use Force: This variable will be referred to in the remainder of this paper as the variable, or index of "force," although it will mean an officer's willingness or proneness to utilize force. All other variables will be correlated with the variable of "force." "Force" hence constitues the major "criterion variable." Those who have scored high on this index of force will have indicated on a number of different questions that they place a high value upon the use of force; those scoring low would indicate the reverse. See Appendix A for a listing of those items making up the index of force variable. 'g§e_0f Gun: This variable is a response of actual use of the gun in the field. It will be analyzed as a frequency distribution and correlated with the "force" index. [Assaulted By Citizens: This variable measures the self-reported number of times that officers have been assaulted by citizens. This will also be correlated with the "force" index. Also included in the data is the number of those above assaults which occured when the officer was alone. This item will be compared to those 22 assaults in general. Danger Perception: There were several items which indicated how dangerous the officer perceived the police occupation. This variable will be analyzed as a frequency_ distribution and it will be correlated to the index "force." Self—Rating Physical Prowess: The officers were asked to rate themselves relative to their fellow officers on physical size, physical condition, and skills of self- defense. This index will be correlated with the index of "force." Escaping Felon: Some officers see their primary role as criminal catchers or law enforcers and will pursue this at all costs, even though endangering the lives of innocent bystanders. One of the variables indicates officers' attitudes toward this. This variable will be analyzed as a frequency distribution and correlated with the index of "force." Quest For Authority: A full section of this chapter has focussed on this concept. There were numerous items utilized that should have elicited appropriate responses according to the value the officer placed on the need for authority. This variable, quest for authority, will be correlated with the index of "force." 23 Interpersonal Items: The following variables are aspects of the interpersonal techniques that an officer may believe in or utilize in his interactions with citizens. Some officers may feel that it would help in a tense situation if the citizen believes that the officer is getting angry. Those officers agreeing with this concept will receive a higher score and, this score, in turn, will be correlated with the "force" variable. There is a great deal of difference among officers' opinions on their abilities to predict how a citizen would react to them. Although containing only two questions. this variable will be correlated to the "force" index. There is little doubt that often police problems escalate on or shortly after the arrival of police officers. How do police officers feel about this, and do they feel they can prevent it?‘ Does the police officer feel that it is his responsibility to prevent his escalating the problem? This variable will be analyzed as a frequency distribution and correlated to the "force" variable. One of the theses of this paper is that there is, and must be, a great deal of difference in the way an officer handles citizens, depending on the social class of the citizen. This variable will be analyzed as a 24 frequency distribution and correlated with "force.“ Attitude Scales: The scores of two attitude scales were available in the data. These attitude scales will only be correlated to the index of force in the analysis. The scales included are: 1) F scale of authoritarianism; 12 and 2) Srole's scale of anomia. 11 7 11T. W. Adorno, g£_al,, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951). 12 Leo Srole, "Social Integration and Certain Coro- llaries: An Exploratory Study," American Sociological Review, Vol. 21, No. 6, December 1956, pp. 709-716. CHAPTER II METHODS Original Study The analysis of data utilized in this study is secondary in nature.* The original study was conducted in the Police Academy of the New York City Police Depart- ment, and the data were gathered in the academy over three years, between 1960-1963. It was a descriptive study of the development of: 1) the recruits' inter- personal skills; 2) their conceptions of the legal basis of police authority; and 3) the development of their job motivations. The research effort was divided into essentially two interrelated studies, i.e., " a role- training study" and "a role-learning study." Of these two the primary focus of the resource thesis1 was on the "role-learning study." There was a wide variety of data gathering techniques utilized in the original research. The "critical incident *The author is indebted to Dr. John H. McNamara, who made available to him all recorded and coded data in the form of a computer tape. 1John H. McNamara, "Role-Learning For Police Recruits" (unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of California. Los Angeles, 1967). 26 2 was utilized to gain a description and technique" conceptualization of the police role. This technique involved police officers' relating "critical incidents," in which they were involved, in both behavioral and evaluative terms. The next data—gathering techniques utilized by the original researcher was the participant observer method. The researcher chased police calls and observed the interpersonal interactions which occurred at these various incidents. According to the researcher, "the major value, it now appears, of this participant observation was the opportunity it afforded the author [of the original study] to become aware of the ambiguous nature of many situations that confronted police."3 Departmental records were also utilized as a data source in the original study. The present writer used none of these data for his study of police use of force and violence. Role-playing exercises were utilized as a data— gathering technique in the same manner as was the 21bid., p. 49. 31bid., p. 56. 27 critical incident technique, i.e., as a source of infor- mation and hypotheses. The major data gathering technique utilized in the original study was that of the self-administered question- naire. These data are analyzed in the present study. A more detailed discussion of this data-gathering technique will follow in the "Procedure" section of this chapter. Subjects The subjects in this study constituted a sample of those men entering the New York City Police Academy between 1961 and 1963. The selection of the sample was largely controlled by the administrative policies of the academy. The recruits were assigned to recruit companies, each consisting of approximately 25 to 40 recruits. They were assigned to the companies on the basis of their residential propinquity to one another. It was in these companies as units that the recruits served as subjects. Approximately 700 recruits gave responses on at least one questionnaire each and two groups of men were tested on three separate questionnaires. These latter groups were tested at the beginning of their training, 28 at the end of their training, and after one or two year's experience on the street. See Table I for a summariza- tion of the questionnaires and their administration to the sample. Procedure The relationships explored in the present analysis of this data are primarily of an exploratory nature. Conclusions will be offered as hypotheses for further research. Instrument: The main data gathering instrument utilized in the study is the self-administered quesfion- naire. Some of the questions were of the openeended or unstructured type requiring the subjects to write in their responses. The majority of the questions. however, were of the "agree, disagree" form, utilizing the Likert-type scale responses, i.e., strongly agree. agree, uncertain, disagree, strongly disagree. Measurements: The present scoring was arbitrary. assigning numerical values to those responses which would indicate the specific trait being sought. For example, utilizing the Likert—type response categories. a "strongly agree" response to a question indicating a 29 TABLE I Questionnaire Administered to Police Recruits Group Point in Year Month Questionnaire (N) Number Career 1961 July 01A 107 One Start of Training October 018 107 One End of Training 1962 July 03A 171 Three Start of Training October 03B 164 Three End of Training 1963 June 04A 296 Four Third Month In Training June 048 266 Four Fourth Month In Training November 01C 83 One Two Years In Field November 03C 137 Three One Year In Field 30 high value placed upon the use of force, would receive a score of "5". A "strongly disagree" response to the same question would receive a score of "1". Some varia- tions of the Likert-type response categories were used; for example, a score of "2" for "agree", a score of "1" for "uncertain" and "no response", and a score of "O" for "disagree". This form of scoring was utilized throughout all of the Likert-type response categories used in the present analysis. Those items not eliciting the Likert-type response and the "open-ended" items were often scored as "1", indicating the variable, or "O". as not indicating the particular variable. Several cases of the "open-ended" questions were scored "2" for a strong indication forthe variable, "1" for a weaker indication and "0" indicating the absence of that variable. All of the scores for each index or variable per individual officer, on each questionnaire, were totaled, i.e., summed and recorded thus giving each officer one index score for each variable. In the case of “willingness or proneness to utilize force," the index of force, the scores of many questions are added together to make the total or index score. However, 31 in the case of some of the individual variables, only one or two questions make up the total or index score. At this point there are total or index scores for each variable, per person, for each questionnaire. Statistical Analysis: The Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient was selected as the specific method of statistical analysis requiring an assessment 4 The total or index scores for each of a relationship. variable, when compared or scaled within that variable, make up an oridnal scale. The author being primarily interested in those officers ranking high in the use of force, ranked those index scores and utilized rank order correlations, one of the few statistical methods of correlating data arranged on an ordinal scale.5 The test for significance is Student's t distribution.6 4Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics For the Behavigral Sciences (New York: McGraweHill Book Company. Inc., 1956), p. 207. 5Claire Selltiz, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods In Social Relations (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), pp. 192-193. 6Siegel, 22, cit., p. 212. CHAPTER III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Force and Miscellaneous Variables Index of Force: The index of force, as explained in Chapter II, Procedures section, is made up of numerous items, most of which are the same on all questionnaires, except those in 01A and QlB.' This first questionnaire had a number of open-ended items which were transformed into Likert-type response items in the later question- naires. The two last questionnaires--QlC and Q3C--had several additional items not included in any other questionnaire. These items were also used to make up the index of force in these questionnaires. There is a built-in methodological problem caused by not having the index of force made up of identical items throughout all questionnaires. This makes rigorous comparisons which involve the index of force among different questionnaires difficult. The author has observed in the analysis of frequency distributions of the index of force that each version of the index appears to approximate a normal distribution. 33 This would tend to support the thesis offered previously that officers' proneness or willingness to use force may well be characterized on a continuum, with most of the officers falling in the middle of that continuum. One critical question is how do the police compare with non- police on this same index? Unfortunately, the sample included only police officers and tells us nothing about the general population. The "index of force" variable constitutes the major "criterion variable". and all other variables were correlated with it in this analysis. Use of Gun: The officer's weapon or gun is his ultimate tool in utilizing force. This is his only Mr. ’94 lethal weapon, and generally will not be used offensively unless the officer or a citizen is highly threatened, such as in cases of serious or dangerous felons. The weapon is often drawn when the officer is searching empty buildings, or burglarized buildings late at night, i.e., for defensive purposes. Seldom in these instances are the police observed by the citizens. The drawing of the gun is a precautionary move on the officer's part for his own protection. He may not even know if anyone is in the building, while the subject, a burglar, may 34 already have the drop on him. The relative frequency of this use of the gun in comparison is well illustrated by the frequency table II. It can be seen in this table that 72% of the officers have drawn their guns without firing them. However, only 9.1% of the officers have shot at people and only 13.2% have even shot warning shots. Also of importance, is of that 9.1%.who had shot at persons, 86% fired only once at a person, and of that 13.2%.who had fired warning shots,68%.had fired only one warning shot. However, as with the general use of force index, there is a great deal of difference among officers with respect to their willingness to use the gun. This is shown by the large spread in the frequency distribution (Table III) . The "use of gun" variable showed the highest corre- lation with the index of force of all the variables analyzed in the study. The use of gun variable was not included in the calculation of the index of force. There were only two questionnaires on which the items for this variable existed. However, the results on both questionnaires (01C and 03C) were both significant at the .001 level, with respective correlation coeffi- cients of .50 and .59 (See Table IV). 35 TABLE II USE OF GUN--FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION (QlC & 03C Combined) Number Shot At Person Shot Warning Shot Drew Gun, No Shot Of Times* Frequency % Frequency %. Frequency % 0 201 90.9% 192 86.8% I 62 28.0% 1 17 7.6% 20 9.0%. 22 9.9% 2 l 0.4% 6 2.7%. 34 15.3% 3 0 0.0% 2 0.9% 28 12.6% 4 l 0.4%. 0 0.0% 15 6.7% 5 l 0.4%. 0 0.0% 17 7.6% 6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 3.6% 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0%. 2 0.9% 8 0 0.0% l 0.4% 33 14.2% Item: Indicate how many times you have used your revolver in the line of duty since joining the force: 1. Shot At Person. 2. Shot Warning Shot. 3. Drew Gun, No Shot. *These values are the actual number of times the officers have used their guns. 36 TABLE III USE OF GUN--FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION Number Frequency QlC Freguency_ggc Of Times* 2 Years' Experience 1 Year's Experience 1 1 ' 3 2 6 24 3 11 13 4 11 26 5 16 15 6 7 9 7 7 9 8 3 9 9 3 7 10 3 7 ll 6 5 12 3 5 13 6 2 14 __2 ___2. Total N 85 137 Item: Indicate how many times you have used your revolver in the line of duty since joining the force: 1. Shot At Person. 2. Shot Warning Shot. 3. Drew Gun, No Shot. *These values are the actual number of times the officers have used their guns., i.e., sum of responses to the three items listed above. The different uses of the gun are grouped into one overall category. 37 TABLE IV RANK-ORDER CORRELATION USE OF GUN/INDEX OF FORCE Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N_ Significance 01C .5052 5.3330 85 .001 03C .5916 8.5252 137 .001 See Table III For Wording Of Items The results of this analysis indicate that there is a strong relationship between the officer's general orientation toward the use of force and his use of deadly force, i.e., the gun. This relationship tends to increase confidence in the validity of the index of force. Escaping Felon: Police are sometimes confronted with a felon fleeing in the midst of innocent bystanders. Some officers will consider the safety of themselves and the innocent bystanders as the determining factor. Other officers, however, see only the importance of apprehending the felon and may pursue this at the risk of injuring 38 innocent bystanders and/or themselves. Table V reveals the variations in the sample with respect to the condi- tions when the use of force is perceived as legitimate in the case of fleeing felons. (See Table V for wording of item.) More than half of the officers, 59%, were TABLE V ESCAPING FELON--FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION _2__Res onse 12123. 9.1.9 9.3 19.133}. _zé_ Strongly Disagree 1 4 11 15 7 Disagree 2 24 50. 74 34 Uncertain 3 13 29 42 19 Agree 4 29 34 63 29 Strongly Agree 5 14, ._11 ‘_g§ ._ll 84 135 219 100 Item: A police officer should not allow a felony suspect to go free even if an arrest may endanger the . officer's life or the lives of bystanders. either undecided or were in favor of apprehending the escaping felon. In other words, only 41% of these officers would allow the felon to escape under the circumstances identified in Table V. The author sees this lack of concern for the welfare of innocent citizens or himself 39 as a rather frightening finding. This further reveals the diversified attitudes among police officers as to the use of force. These results also tend to support the observations by Westley regarding the high value police officers place on "the felony pinch."1 Although this attitude is far from universal, as Westley would have one believe, it is yet a very signi- ficant number of officers. There are rather strong implications that a serious role identification problem may exist here. When this variable, escaping felon, was correlated with the index of force, a slight relationship was indicated (See Table VI). Intuitively one would expect a stronger relationship between these two variables, however, there may well be other unidentified intervening variables which reduce the size of the correlation. Assaulted by Citizen: Authorities in the police field have asserted that the group of officers Which is most frequently assaulted by citizens can be generally 1 William A. Westley, "Violence and the Police," American Journal of Sociology, July 1953, pp. 34-41. 40 TABLE VI RANK—ORDER CORRELATION ESCAPING FELON/INDEX OF FORCE Rank-Order Correlation Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 01C .3002 2.8671 85 .010 03C .2031 2.3916 135 .020 considered the more violent policemen. This theory is based on the premise that those officers who are assaulted have caused the assaults, either by first assaulting the citizen without provocation, causing him to retaliate, or by intentionally provoking the citizen to assault him so that he may utilize forge and effect an arrest. Such behavior identifies an officer who is possibly Imore than willing to utilize force in carrying out his Police tasks. Those above methods of provoking a fight were quite typical of tactics used by the violent men in rI'<:>c:h.'s study.2 The analysis of this variable in the present - -‘------—-_- 2Hans Toch, Violent Men (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969). P. 174. 41 study does not necessarily support this theory. The corre- lation of the "officers assaulted" with the index of force is not large (See Table VII). This result may be an indi- TABLE VII RANK-ORDER CORRELATION ASSAULTED BY CITIZEN/INDEX OF FORCE Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient . t-value N Significance 01C .1986 1.8460 85 .100 03C .2215 2.6389 137 .010 cation that not only those officers who are violent or highly prone to utilize force are assaulted: thus indicating that many of these officers may not be intentionally provoking the citizens but instead unaware of their provoking tactics. The analysis of this variable in the present study does not refute this unawareness. Upon closer inspection of these results several impor- tant observations were made in the responses to questionnaire 1C. Approximately 3/4's of those officers who were assaulted two or more times had scores above the mean on the force index. Similarly, 3/4's of those officers' responses in 42 questionnaire 3C, who were assaulted three or more times, were also above the mean on the index of force (See Table VIII). TABLE VIII ASSAULTED BY CITIZENS-~FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION Questionnaire 01 Number Of Times Number w* 9.11.1299. 0 55 1 21 2 6 3 3 Qgestionnaire Q3C Number Of Times Number Assaulted* 0f Men 0 98 1 26 2 6 3 2 4 l 5 3 6 0 7 l 137 Item: Indicate approximately how many times you have been assaulted by one or more citizens while you were performing police duties (GIVE NUMBER): . *These values are the actual number of times the officers have been assaulted. 43 Of the three officers who were assaulted most, from the questionnaire 1C, all were above the mean on the violence index. This was not quite the case on question- naire 3C as the seven officers who had been assaulted the most, five were substantially above the mean and two were below the mean on the index of force. The primary explana- tion for this finding probably lies in the fact that some officers may have worked longer in high crime districts than did other officers. There was no statistical control for this factor in the present analysis. The author was surprised to find that 71%.of the above assaults occurred while the officers were working alone. This tends to refute the argument that an officer is safer and less apt to be assaulted when working alone. This argument is based on the theory that an officer prevents assaults by being more diplomatic, i.e., discretion is the better part of valor. Unfortunately, the percentage of the time that the officers worked alone, compared to working with another officer and the areas in which they worked, were not a part of this analysis. No matter, this result may still be another indication that officers may not be 'intentionally provoking the citizens, but instead, unaware of their provoking tactics. 44 Perception of Danger: The variable "perception of danger", was made up of the sum of the officers' responses to the number of injuries and the number of deaths that they believed occurred to police officers in an average year. (See Table IX for the actual items as they were worded on the questionnaire.) The officers on both questionnaires, approximately 84%, believed that fewer injuries occurred than actually did. However, nearly a majority of the officers--64.4% (01B) and 59.6%.(QBB)-- believed that more deaths occurred than actually did (See Table IX). Although these results indicate that officers see their occupation as dangerous, possibly more dangerous than it actually is. It does not indicate that they are fearful or afraid in the occupation. One might intuitively expect that there is a relationship between an officer's perception of the danger of his occupation and his willing- ness or proneness to utilize force. It would seem logical to assume that an officer who is fearful, might well over- react in violent situations, utilizing excessive force. Or the reverse might be the case, as an officer who is fearful might avoid a violent enaaunter to the point of cowardice. The analysis of this variable does not indicate that any 45 TABLE IX INJURIES-~FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION Questionnaire Ql Questionnaire Q3B Number Number Number of Injuries of Men ‘3_é of Men % No injuries or no response 4 3.7% 2 1.1% Less than 1,193 88 82.2% 143 83.6% From 1,193 to 1,528 6 5.6% 7 4.0% More than 1,528 9 8.4% 19 11.1% Actual range as to number of injuries in preceding five year period: 1200-1500 DEATHSf-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION Questionnaire QlB Questionnaire Q38 Number Number Number of Deaths of Men 35 of Men 2g No deaths or no response 4 3.7% 2 1.1% Five or less. 34 31.7% 67 39.1% More than five 69 64.4% 102 59.6% Actual annual average number of deaths in preceding five year period: 5 Item: For the following events indicate the number of police officers you estimate these events happen to in an average year. If you don't know for sure, make a guess: 1. Injuries in line of duty. . 2. Deaths in line of duty. . 46 relationship exists. In the analysis of the two different questionnaires, one revealed a slight negative correlation with this index of force and the other a slight positive correlation (See Table X). TABLE X RANK-ORDER CORRELATION DANGER INDEX/INDEX OF FORCE (Combined Injuries and Deaths) Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 03A .1203 1.5753 171 .200 See Table IX For Wording Of Items In "Danger Index" Only one of the two, the positive coefficient, shows anything approximating statistical significance.and it is only at the .20 level. The officer's responses to these questions may only be a sign of his ignorance of those particular statistics rather than an indication of his perception of the danger in his occupation. From the analysis of this variable, the author does not feel 47 justified in stating that either there is or there is not any relationship between an officer's perception of the danger level of the occupation and his willingness or proneness to utilize force. Self-Rating Physical Prowess: It has been hypothesized that policemen place a high value on the attribute of physical prowess. Therefore, an officer's self-evaluation concerning this particular attribute would be influential in the motivation of his behavior. The author, in Chapter I,under paragraph heading "Personal Affront", discussed the possible behavioral effect of an officer whose "physical prowess" is easily threatened. The officer might be continuously trying to prove himself and be prone to utilize force and violence more frequently and severely than do other officers. There were three items pertaining to physical attri- butes, on five different questionnaires, which elicited responses from the officers on how they self-rated them- selves against their peers. (See Table XI for the actual scoring and wording of the items.) The three items were combined into one "physical prowess" variable by summing the three scores for each officer. Those officers TABLE XI RANK-ORDER CORRELATION 48 SELF-RATING PHYSICAL PROWESS/INDEX OF FORCE Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t—value N Significance 01C -.1817 -l.6735 84 .100 QBB -.1074 -l.3743 164 .200 03C .0540 .6284 137 N.S. 04A .1355 2.3441 296 .020 04B .0412 .6707 266 N.S. Items: Indicate whether you think you are above or below the average for patrolmen in possession of these abilities and qualities by marking each one in Use the following scale: the left hand margin. Score Values Lula-wrote Physical Size. Response General Physical Condition. Skills of Self Defense. Quite a bit above average. Somewhat above average. About average. Somewhat below average. Quite a bit below average. scoring low, self-rated themselves above average in these attributes of physical prowess (See Table XI). This 49 "physical prowess" variable was then correlated with the index of force. The analysis of these data indicates little or no relationship between the two variables. The author is confronted with slight positive and negative correlations between the variables on the different questionnaires (See Table XI). A low internal validity of the instrument as a measure of one's self-concept of physical prowess, may account for the curious correlation coefficients obtained. However. these results may well indicate that this variable, an officer's self-evaluation of his physical prowess, does not account for much of the violent behavior of particular police officers. Quest For Authority and Interpersonal Variables ngst For Authority: The author in Chapter I discussed in one section the concept of a policeman's quest for authority. The problem was here described as involving an officer's definitions of respect and authority. If the officer equates respect with fear, then his quest for authority would more likely take the form of intimi- dation. If this then were the case, the police officer who places a high value on respect_and authority would be 50 more likely to feel his authority challenged, hence, have a greater opportunity to respond with force or violence. One might then intuitively expect a relationship between the quest for authority variable and the index of force. Westley's observations would add support to this hypothesis, as in his study he found that police violence, or the use of force, was often a response to a challenge of a police- man's authority. The quest for authority variable was made up of various items, all eliciting the respondents' attitudes toward police authority. (See Appendix 3. Quest for Authority, for a listing of each individual item as they were worded in the questionnaire.) The scores on each item, for each individual, per questionnaire, were totaled. giving the total quest for authority variable score. This variable was then correlated with the index of force on six different questionnaires. The analysis of these variables produced correlation coefficients ranging from .23 to ~37. All were significant beyond the .01 level of significance (See Table XII). This analysis gives support to the hypothesis that there is a relationship between an officer's "quest for 51 TABLE XII RANK-ORDER CORRELATION QUEST FOR AUTHORITY/INDEX OF FORCE Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 01C .3684 3.6104 85 .001 03A .2962 4.0321 171 .001 QBB .2345 3.0710 165 .010 03C .2978 3.6244 137 .001 04A .2895 5.1862 296 .001 04B .3216 5.5195 266 .001 authority" and his willingness or proneness to utilize force. This particular phenomena may well be one of the major sources of the problems in police—citizen relations. This is particularly true today, as individual rights have never before been held in such high regard by the general public, specifically minority peoples. Helps If Citizen Thinks Police Officer Angry: The first one of these items measuring interpersonal relations to be discussed is that item regarding whether it helps 52 in a tense situation for the citizen to think that the police officer is getting angry. (See Table XIII for the exact wording of the item as it occurred on the question- naires). The results in this analysis are quite informative. TABLE XIII RANK-ORDER CORRELATION HELPS IF CITIZEN THINKS POLICE OFFICER ANGRY/ INDEX OF FORCE Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 01C .2199 1.9758 85 .050 03C .1682 1.9825 137 .050 04A .3004 5.3912 295 .001 048 .3983 7.0564 266 .001 Item: When patrolmen indicate they will use the force necessary to gain compliance from a citizen they are helped considerably if the citizen thinks they are getting angry. There were positive correlations formed for all of the four questionnaires which contained the items. The correlation coefficients ranged from .17 to .40 and were 53 all of statistical significance beyond the .05 level (See Table XIII) . If an officer were to rate high on the quest for authority variable and also high on this variable, he may well equate respect with fear. He would then be likely to intimidate citizens to gain respect and authority. It is interesting to note that on one of the questionnaires (Q4B),out of the seven officers who ranked highest on this variable, six scored well above the mean on the quest for authority variable (See Table XIV). What these officers apparently do not realize is that when they get angry, or at least when the citizen thinks that they are angry, the citizen is also likely to get angry. The inability to recognize this fact may be due to the lack of a very basic skill in interpersonal rela- tions. This particular skill is empathy. That is the ability of one to see or put himself into the position of the other person. The lack or absence of this ability would allow one to get into situations or predicaments without his realizing why. Toch found many of his violent men lacking in interpersonal skills, particularly verbal communication skills and empathy. These men would often 54 TABLE XIV FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION HELPS IF CITIZEN THINKS POLICE OFFICER ANGRY V_al_1_._1_e_ Response Q12 fl Qfl Q_4_B_ 5 Strongly Agree 0 2 7 7 4 Agree 36 53 95 76 3 Uncertain l4 16 51 53 2 Disagree 31 65 134 127 1 Strongly Disagree _§. __1_ ‘__§ __Q_ Total N 84 137 295 266 Mean score for all officers in 048 on Quest For Authority Variable: x = 10.8 Mean score for the 7 officers on Quest For Authority Variable: §'= 13.2 Range: 6-18 Item: When patrolmen indicate they will use the force necessary to gain compliance from a citizen they are helped considerably if the citizen thinks they are getting angry. back others into a corner or infuriate them without real— izing that they were doing so. They would express surprise. sometimes even be offended, when the other person would lash out or retaliate to what was in actuality an infuri- ating experience. This then would legitimize violent 55 action on the part of the Violent man because he was only defending himself from what he preceived to be an unpro- voked attack. Predicting Citizens' Behavior: The items in this variable were dealing with the officers' perceived ability to predict how a citizen would react to him. (See Table XV for the exact wording of the items as they existed on the questionnaire.) It was hypothesized by TABLE XV RANK-ORDER CORRELATION PREDICTING CITIZENS' BEHAVIOR/INDEX or FORCE . Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 01C .0900 .8231 85 N.S. 03C -.ll64 -1.3619 137 .200 Items: A. It is not too hard to predict how individual citizens will react to what a patrolman says or does to them. B. A patrolman can rarely tell much beforehand about how an individual citizen will react to him in a situation. the author that this and the previous variable, "Helps if 56 citizen thinks police officer is getting angry", would be highly related. The officer who feels that he can often predict how citizens will react to him may well be able to empathize with citizens. In the same way, the officer who is unable to predict how citizens will react to him may not be able to empathize with them. However, upon close inspection it is found that this variable, the offi- cers' preceived ability to predict Citizens' reaction to him, and the previous variable, "helps if citizen thinks police officer is getting angry,“ shows little or no relation. Further, the analysis of this variable's relationship with the index of force produced contradictory but slight correlation coefficients fOr the two groups (See Table XV). The results of this analysis, in the author's judgement, allows him to conclude that there is no relationship between this variable and the index of force. The author explains this lack of relationship as due to a low internal validity of the instrument as a measure of an officer's preceived ability to predict citizen behavior. It is hypothesized that many officers respond to these items in the exception, rather than the rule. 57 Police officers are particularly aware of the relative unpredictability of human behavior. Even though the officer may accurately predict a citizen's behavior in eight out of ten situations, the two that he was not able to predict, or that he predicted wrong, would remain fore most in his memory. He would then respond with negative feelings toward his ability (any officer's ability) to predict Citizens' behavior. It is further hypothesized that some of the more violent policemen, or policemen more willing to utilize force, would confidently predict that all or most citizens would react in a violent manner. (Many citizens may react violently to these particular officers.) These officers may not realize that the citizens are only responding to their approach or manner. Police Officers Escalate Problems: Police problems frequently escalate upon or shortly after the arrival of the officer. Oftentimes the officers' actions have been a factor in causing the problems to escalate. They might very well have prevented the escalation, had they acted in a different manner. Officers who are either unaware or unwilling to admit that they may escalate a police 58 problem will not likely prevent that escalation. Only 7% of the officers on 01C, and 8% of those on 03C, actually were unaware or unwilling to admit that their actions may escalate the police problem. (See Table XVI for the wording of the items as they occurred on the questionnaire.) Also, on both questionnaires more than half of the officers \scored in the uncertain range, i.e., score of 6* (See Table XVI). Again, in the author's opinion, there is low internal validity in the instrument as a measure of whether or not the officer recognizes that he may cause the escalation of a situational problem. The author would hypothesize that many officers who are aware of their influence on various police problems would respond in the uncertain response. The explanation for this phenomenon would be that many situations do escalate upon the arrival of the police but with the officers' having had no effect on its escalation, other than the effect of their presence. Also, as discussed in the previous variable, police officers are particularly aware of the all too often unpredictability *Although a combined score of 6 could be made up of 2 and 4 as well as 3 and 3, it does indicate an obvious un- certainty to the respondents as to the effect on any situa— tion of the officer. There were no 1 and 5 combinations. and only a few 2 and 4 combinations. 59 TABLE XVI FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFFICERS ESCALATE THE PROBLEM Respgnse Score Frequency Q1C QQBC _E. .J%_ .;E_ ._J§_ Agrees 2 0 0 2 1.5 With Items 3 3 3.6 7 5 4 16 19 21 15 5 14 17 22 16 Uncertain 6 45 54 74 54 Disagrees 7 2 2.4 2 1.5_ With Items 8 4 5 8 6 9 0 0 0 0 10 ._Q 0 1 .7 Total N 84 100% 136 100% Items: A. In police work a patrolman has to be constantly on the guard against the possibility that his actions will create more of a police problem than existed before he entered a scene. B. A patrolman's presence at a scene where people are angry often causes such people to become even more angry and to become more prone to violence. *The score for this variable was obtained by adding the scores of the two items. of human behavior. 60 The correlation coefficient was not computed for 01C, and in 03C only a slight relationship was indicated between this variable and the index of force variable in the analysis (See Table XVII). TABLE XVII RANK-ORDER CORRELATION POLICE OFFICERS ESCALATE PROBLEM/INDEX OF FORCE Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 03C -.1339 -l.5701 137 .200 This result would further support the hypothesis that there is low internal validity in this instrument as a ' measure of how officers preceive their effect on situational problems. Difference In Handling People: One of the theses of this paper is that police officers must deal differently with different citizens, depending on socioeconomic class and other variables, such as the citizen sub-culture. The items utilized for this analysis should have elicited responses from the officers indicating whether or not they 61 TABLE XVIII DIFFERENCE IN HANDLING PEOPLE--FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION Questionnaire Q3B Score Frequency it. __;7é_ No Difference 1 8 21% 2 2 3 17 10% 4 39 24% 5 4o} 6 25 45% Much Difference 7 .__9 Total N 164 100% _ Items: A. As far as patrolmen are concerned there is little difference between handling a hostile doctor and handling a hostile ditchdigger: l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Uncertain 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree B. List the three most important differences for the polka officers between handling a family dispute in a slum area and such a dispute in a wealthy area: (First Responses Only) 1. Responses scored as 2. a) Resistance is physically violent in slums; verbal in wealthy areas. b) Bluntness or physical force necessary in slums; reasoning with tact and diplo- macy is necessary in wealthy areas. c) Communication is different. 2. Responses scored as 1. a) Slum area people are less able to under— stand. b) General differences. c) Less compliance or respect from slum dwellers. d) In slums, police must arbitrate. e) In slums, the disputes are more frequent and more intense. 3. Response scored as 0. a) No difference. 62 felt that citizens should be handled in a different manner. (See Table XVIII for a scoring and listing of the items as they occurred on the questionnaire.) In the analysis of this variable it was observed that only 45% of the officers indicated that different citizens must be dealt with in different ways. At the opposite end 21% of the officers indicated that citizens should not be treated any differently (See Table XVIII). TABLE XIX RANK-ORDER CORRELATIONS DIFFERENCE IN HANDLING PEOPLE/INDEX OF FORCE Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 033 .0084 .1068 164 N.S. When correlated with the index of force, this variable showed no relationship. Unfortunately, the items for this variable existed only on one questionnaire (See Table XIX). From these results, the author is unable to assert with confidence either the absence or the existence of a relation— 63 ship between this variable and the index of force. However, this is a strong indication that there is no relationship between these two variables. One explanation of this lack of relationship is the emphasis placed in training on the equality of handling of all citizens by the police. "Equality of police handling of citizens" in this instance is fallaciously equated with "methods of police handling of citizens." It must further be noted that these officers tested had yet to have street experience as they had just completed their academy training. Policemen who have had experience would be much more cognizant of different handling of different citizens. Attitude Scales There were two established and standardized attitude scales utilized in this analysis. The first analysis to be discussed will be that of the Authoritarian (F) Scale. The second analysis will involve Srole's scale of Anomia. "F" Scale: The "F" scale of authoritarianism results were analyzed in the original study. Two rather significant findings were reported. First, that the 64 recruits scored on the "F" scale approximately the same as the non—police people do who are from the same socio- economic class from which the recruits were recruited, i.e., lower-middle working class. Second, that recruits' "F" scores did increase after training and again after one or two years' of police experience. In the present analysis six questionnaires contained the "F" scales of authoritarianism and all were correlated with the index of force variable. The resulting correlation coefficients were of sufficient magnitude and significance to indicate a definite relationship between these two variables (See Table XX). TABLE XX RANK-ORDER CORRELATIONS ATTITUDE SCALES F-Scale/Index of Force Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 03A .1781 2.1725 146 .050 03B .2148 2.0983 93 .050 03C .2657 3.2026 137 .010 04A .3238 5.8387 293 .001 04B .3417 5.8860 264 .001 01C .4136 4.1392 85 .001 65 One would intuitively expect that authoritarianism and the willingness or proneness to utilize force would show a strong relationship to each other. Niederhoffer in his book equates power and force with authoritarianism.3 Also, one of the variables that Adorno used in defining the authoritarian personality was "Power and Toughness."4 These results would again tend to increase confidence in the validity of the index of force. A rather interesting phenomenon appeared in these results. In every case, the correlation coefficient increased as the experience of the officers increased, i.e., years or months in occupation increased. This in~ crease in the correlation coefficient may parallel that increase in "F" score observed in the original study. Another interesting feature in the analysis of these results is that the later questionnares also show an increase in the correlation coefficient. This increase 3Arthur Niederhoffer, Behind the Shield: The Police In Urban Society (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc. 1 1967) I pp. 131-1320 4T. W. Adorno, gt. 31., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951), p. 237. 66 may be explained by the fact that these items, particularly on the index of force variable, than did the earlier tests. Also, the earlier tests had a greater number of open-ended questions, many of which were not properly weighted, thus making these tests much less reliable and/or valid. All of this, of course, supports the finding that there is a significant relationship between the "F" scale of authoritarianism and an officer's willingness or proneness to utilize force. Anomia Scale: The results of Srole's scale of Anomia was analyzed in the original study. The major finding was that the officers tested did not score particularly high on this scale, and hence, were not considered to be alienated. However, in only two years' of experience, alienation or anomie is not likely to occur. Niederhoffer in his book devotes a complete chapter on Anomie and Cynicism and he indicates that this process does take quite a few years--more than two. The anomia scores, like the "F" scale scores. correlated with the index of force variable. Also, in the same manner as the "F" scale scores, the correlation coefficients increased as the experience of the officer 67 increased (See Table XXI). TABLE XXI RANK-ORDER CORRELATION ATTITUDE SCALES Anomia Scale/ Index of Force Rank-Order Correlation Student's Questionnaire Coefficient t-value N Significance 03A 1 .2711 3.3795 146 .001 Q3B .3035 3.0382 93 .010 04A .2619 4.6284 293 .001 043 .3065 5.2117 264 .001 01C .3794 3.7361 85 .001 03C .3115 3.8094 137 .001 In the first chapter of this paper the author dis- cussed the effect of the "exposure experience" on an officer in familiarizing himself with physical violence. This same "exposure experience" is considered by Niederhoffer 5 as the major cause of anomie and cynicism in the policeman. The results of this analysis indicate that quite possibly 5Niederhoffer, 92, cit., p. 91. 68 some of those men who are most susceptible to anomie may also be the most prone to utilize force or resort to violence. Niederhoffer has asserted that in "---the police system the typical adaptation to anomie is cynicism and ascribes diffuse feelings of hate, envy, and hostility to cynicism."6 It seems then that the use of force and violence would very likely be but an expression of this hate, envy, and hostility, particularly in one who is predisposed to violence. The same internal problems discussed above in the analysis of the "F" scale also applies in this analysis. However, the substantial difference in the correlation coefficient between those in 03C , who had only one year of experience, and those in QlC, who had two years' experience, may be significant. One possible explanation of this increase is that some officers, those susceptible to anomie, become more willing and prone to utilize force as their experiences increase. The author would hypothesize that some officers' willingness or proneness to utilize force would increase more with experience than other officers, thus creating 6Ibid.. p. 93. 69 a greater differential between officers on this index. This increased differential, if involving those men most susceptible to anomie, would cause an increase in the correlation coefficient between these two variables. 70 CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Research Methods and Procedure The analysis of data utilized in this study is secondary in nature. The original study was conducted in the Police Academy of the New York City Police De- partment and the data were gathered in the academy over three years, between 1960-1963. The subjects in the study constituted a sample of those men entering the New York City Police Academy between those years. Approximately 700 recruits gave responses on at least one questionnaire each and two groups of men were tested on three separate questionnaires. These latter groups were tested at the beginning of their training, at the end of their training and after one or two year's experience on the street. The main data gathering instrument utilized was the self-administered question- naire. The scoring of the various variables was arbitrary. assigning numerical values to those responses which would indicate the specific trait being sought. This arbitrary method of scoring built into the analysis a serious 71 question or problem of validity. The author would not again utilize this method of scoring without major changes influencing its validity. However, for the purpose of this exploratory analysis, regorous attention to the principles of scientific measurement might well eliminate any resulting conclusions at all. The analysis was obtained by the use of frequency distributions,* and the Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient. The major criterion variable utilized in the correlations was the "index of force." The "index of force" was designed as an index of the officers' willingness or proneness to utilize force. Summary of Conclusions Society and Violence: The author had developed the thesis that violence is a very real and legitimate form of communication, especially within some subcul- tures of our society. One need not look far into the history of the United States to find many sources of violence in our society's past: "a celebration of violence in good causes by our revolutionary progenitors. *The frequency distributions generally did not contain the methodological problem of scoring mentioned above. 72 frontiersmen, and vigilantes; immigrant expectations of an earthly paradise only partly fulfilled; the unresolved tensions of rapid and unregulated urban and industrial 1 We are finding a great deal more attention growth." being given to violence today. It is being considered much more critical than it has been in the past. How- ever, the author is unable to discern significant decrease in the acceptance or legitimization of violence today over the past. In some subcultures within our society, violence is a true and legitimate mode of communication. These same subcultures are those most dependent upon the police to solve or resolve a great many of their interpersonal relational problems, both in the home and out in the community. The police are, therefore, very familiar with the use of violence as a mode of communication. Further, the use of violence by the police in many of these incidents is legitimate and quite probably legal. The police are one of the only agencies of our governr ment, with the military and some correctional personnel. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Violence Ig.America, New American Publishers (1969). 73 who have license to violence. By law, the police are given the discretion to take violent action against certain individuals in certain specified circumstances. Police Officers and Violence: Another thesis pre- sented in this paper was that within the subculture of police there is nearly as great a difference between officers' willingness and proneness to resort to violence as may exist among citizens in general. How- ever, police officers could not be compared to the general public as the data did not include subjects other than policemen and police recruits. Under the heading "Dilemma of Physical Control" it was noted by the author that all police officers must be willing at some point in time to resort to physical violence or they would be unable to fulfill their duties as law enforcement agents. In regards to this fact there were two major observations in this and previous studies. First is the fact that some officers have to utilize force more frequently than do others in carrying out their duties. The second observation is in regards to what type and how much force or violence will be utilized. Although the second observation is a prime determinant in 74 defining and locating specific problems of police brutality, the author sees the main problem of police violence rooted in the first observation. Interpersonal Skills: The author has found in this analysis that an officer's interpersonal skills appear to be highly related to whether or not violence will occur when carrying out his tasks as a police officer. The first of these interpersonal skills appears to be related to the officer's quest for authority. Those officers who equate authority with fear, can be expected to intimidate, threaten the use of violence when dealing with citizens they wish to show a respect for their authority. When the citizen then fails to show the desired respect or grant the desired authority, the officer is confronted with either "backing down" or carrying out his threats. Few policemen will back down. What these officers, it appears, fail to recognize is that there are many expressions of fear of which only one may be a showing of respect, or a granting of authority. This then leads to the next and quite possibly the most important interpersonal skill determining the 75 occurance of violence in a police-citizen encounter. That skill is empathy-—the ability to understand the position of another. Empathy, as defined by this author. is made up of two aspects. The first is the ability to put oneself, figuratively, into the position of the other; and the second to further predict the other's possible reaction behavior to that position. Different people will react quite differently to the same type of experience. The skill is to identify or predict each person's different type of reaction. The first aspect of empathy, the ability to “under- stand" another's position, may be the key to police violence. This "understanding" involves the understanding of the psychological implications of frustration, humility. fright and anger, all of which may characterize a subject who is confronted by the police. The author does not mean to imply that only one who has studied psychology can understand these psychological implications. Quite the contrary, it is felt that this skill apparently develops along with the basic personality and has estab— lished its existance or absence well before adulthood. Therefore, it is the author's position that this character- 76 istic is not one which can be instilled or taught in an intensive or extensive training program. This is not to say that training and/or education will not broaden one's understanding of the effects and possible reactions to various experiences common to people. It is to say. however, that some people will become more effective with the training, where others will be completely un- affected; unable to understand the effects of their own actions on others who might well react identically to that action as would the officers themselves. . The police officer who is able to understand the position of the citizen, and can successfully predict his reaction, is in a very favorable position to avoid violence or force in an arrest situation. By the same token, that officer who is unable to see or understand the position of the citizen or to predict his reactive behavior is in a poorer position to avoid violence in these encounters. He may not be intentionally provoking the citizen but instead, be unaware of his provoking tactics. Assaults by citizens against officers when correlated with the index of force, showed a low bti statistically 77 significant correlation (approx. .20). This result may be an indication that not only those officers who are "violent men" or who express a willingness or proneness to utilize force are assaulted or actually do utilize force.' Thus many violent police-citizen encounters may not have been intentionally provoked by a police officer over-willing to utilize force but instead by an officer lacking a basic interpersonal skill who was totally unaware of his provoking tactics. Miscellaneous Variables: The role of the police in our democratic society has been under much discussion in the last few years. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice studied this problem. Of the authorities consulted, two illustrate the contrasting views regarding the role of the police. Richard Myren, of the State University of New York. expresses the view that police should be responsible for only the enforcement of the traditional criminal law,i.e., elimination of the service functions and enforcement of some of the convenience norms by the police. Herman Goldstein, of Northwestern University, expressed the opposite View from Myren's, not excluding but including 78 functions which were not necessarily related to the enforcement of the traditional criminal law, but general functions of community service. It was this latter role which was adopted by the President's Commission as the role most suited for police in a Democratic society. The analysis of these results imply that a significant number of the officers in this sample feel that their role is that of a criminal catcher, i.e., en enforcer of the traditional criminal laws. For example, fifty- nine percent (59%) of the officers in the sample were either uncertain or in favor of apprehending an escaping felon at the risk of their own lives as well as those of innocent bystanders. In other words, only 41% of the officers would have allowed the felon to escape in the above circumstances. This may be an indication that police violence is further nurtured by the acceptance of the traditionally narrow role concept of the police as primarily criminal catchers. Thus, when an officer with such a role definition is faced with a minor con- venience norm violation, he may see the violator as a criminal, i.e., violator of the traditional criminal laws, not something quite different, a convenience norm 79 violator. He may further project the attributes of the criminal to the norm violator, i.e., capable of violence, hence potentionally dangerous to the officer, etc. This may thus legitimize in the officer's view a threat of violence to obtain the desired behavior from the violator. The role of the police weapon, the gun, is highly related to the general use of force or the_index of force variable, (Correlation coefficients of .50 and .59). However, it was of value to note the relative absence of its being fired. Ninety-one per cent (91%» of the officers never shot at people in their one or two years' of police experience, and further, 87% of the officers never shot their weapons in the line of duty. In contrast to this, more than two-thirds of the officers had drawn their guns as either a precautionary measure in an unknown situation, or in an actual arrest situation.* The author would suggest that the identifi- cation of those officers who are either frequently *The author would note here that in his personal police experience.the weapon would be frequently drawn as a precautionary measure when searching unlocked or burglarized buildings in patrol duty late at night. Seldom was it used in the arrest situation. 80 willing to or actually frequently do fire their weapons may be a useful indicator of the officers' proneness to violence. This may indicate both a role identification problem as well as a possible "violent man." There is no doubt that rigid, clearly defined administrative as well as legal controls must sanction all firing of the police weapon. Recommendations for Further Research Empirical Observation: The author would hypothesize that there is a great deal of difference between an officer's reporting of an attitude toward the use of violence and his actual practice, i.e., actual use of force or violent means in the performance of his duties. Thus the problem is not attitude but behavior and the search should proceed for the factors which are peculiar to the particular behavior in question. Further research should utilize actual behavior in regards to police violence. A Specific Factor of Possible Relationship: The author hypothesizes that the greatest part of the problem of police violence is involved with the absence in some 81 officers of a central interpersonal skill° and that these officers are quite unintentionally provoking their violent encounters. This interpersonal skill is empathy. Hypotheses: The following hypotheses should be put to test by empirical research: 1. S2 2 violence is a legitimate mode of communication. 2. Therefore, the familiarity and use of'sgmg_violence is an important technique in the survival of police in our society. 3. The absence of the particular interpersonal skill of empathy is one of the major causes of police violence. 4. The existence of some "violent men" as policemen explains only a small part of the problems of police violence. BIBLIOGRAPHY 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Adorno, T. W., gt. al. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Benton, Michael. The Policeman In the Community. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964. Berkowitz, Leonard. Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., Black, Algernon D. The People and the Police. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. Chapman, Samuel G. Police Patrol Readings. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1964. Chevigny, Paul G. Police Power: Police Abuses In New York City. New York: Pantheon Books, 1969. Doby, John T. (ed.) An Introduction To Social Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Dressler, David (ed.) Readings In Criminology and Penology. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Graham, Hugh Davis and Ted Robert Gurr. Violence In America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. New York: The New American Library, 1969. Niederhoffer, Arthur. Behind the Shield: The Police In Urban Society. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1967. 84 The President's Commission On Law Enforcement and Admin- istration of Justice. Task Force Report: The Police. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Radano, Gene. Walking the Beat. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1968. Scott, William A., and Michael Wertheimer. Introduction To Psychological Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962. Selltiz, Claire. pt. a1. Research Methods In Social Relations. Chicago: Holt. Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics For thetgehaviprgl Sciences. New York: .McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. Skolnick, Jerome H. Justice Without Trial. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc., 1966. Storr, Anthony. Human Aggression. New York: Atheneum Toch, Hans. Violent Men. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. Wilson, James O. Varieties Of Police Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wolfgang, Marvin E. and Franco Ferracuti. The Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock Publications, Barnes B. PERIODICALS Cardarelli, Albert P. "An Analysis of Police Killed by Criminal Action," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 59, No. 3 (September 1968), p. 447. 85 Nettler, Gwynn. "Cruelty, Dignity and Determinism," American Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 3 (June 1959). pp. 375—384. Rainwater, Lee. “Revolt of the Dirty-Workers," Trans- Action (November 1967). Reiss, Albert J. (Jr.) "Police Brutality—-Answers to Key Questions," Trans-Action (July/August 1963), pp. 10-19. Robin, Gerald D. "Justifiable Homicide by Police Officers." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science (June 1963), Vol. 54, No. 2. pp- 225-231. Seeman, Melvin. "On the Meaning of Alienation," American Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 6 (December 1959), p. 783. Shure, Gerald H. and Robert J. Meeker. "A Personality/ Attitude Schedule For Use In Experimental Bargaining Studies," The Jougnal of Psychology (1967), Vbl. 65, pp. 233-252. Smith, Alexander B., 2£.éln "Authoritarianism In College and Non-College Oriented Police," The Journal of CriminalpLaw, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 58, No. 1 (March 1967). p. 128. Smith, Alexander B., pt 31. "Authoritarianism In Police College Students and Non-Police College Students," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 59, No. 3 (September 1968), p. 440. Srole. Leo. "Social Intergration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study," American Sociological Review, Vol. 21, No. 6 (December 1956), pp. 709-716. Westley, William A. "Violence and the Police," American Journal of Sociology, LIX (July 1953), pp. 34-41. 86 C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Goldstein, Herman and Frank J. Remington. "The Police Role In A Democratic Society." Unpublished paper submitted to The President's Commission On Law Enforcement and Administration Of Justice, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, December 7, 1966. MacAskill, Nelson M. "Police Brutality." Unpublished research outline, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1969. McNamara, John H. (Ph.D.) "Uncertainties In Police WOrk: The Relevance of Police Recruits' Backgrounds and Training." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of California, Los Angeles, 1967. Myren, Richard A. "The ROle Of the Police." Unpublished paper submitted to The President's Commission On Law Enforcement and Administration Of Justice, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, 1967. O'Neill, Michael W. "The Study of Violence Involving the Police: Construction of a Methodology." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1968. APPENDICES 88 APPENDIX A ITEMS ON THE USE OF FORCE Likert-type Response Items (Strongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) 1. Do you agree that most officers agree that some force is necessary and justified when a citizen unjustly insults and curses a police officer? (018) In most situations requiring police attention it is wise for a patrolman to let it clearly be known at the outset to citizens that he will use force if it is necessary. (03A, QBB, 04A & 04B, 01 3C) Most patrolmen will never use their firearms in the line of duty more than once or twice during their entire assignments to patrol duty. (03A, 03B, 04A & 04B, 01 3C) If patrolman working in the tough neighborhoods had more leeway and fewer restrictions on the use of force, many of the serious police problems in those neighborhoods would be greatly reduced. (03A, 03B, 04A & Q43, 01 3C) Well developed skills of self-defense are more useful than common sense to a patrolman. (03A, Q3B, 04A & 04B, 01 3C) Patrolmen who try to talk to hostile citizens are more likely to be attacked than patrolmen who make it clear that they can and will use force if necessary to gain the Citizens' com- pliance. (03A, Q3B, 04A & Q43, 01 3C) 10. ll. 12. 89 A patrolman who frequently ignores challenges to fight from citizens will probably make it harder for other patrolmen to work his post or sector. (03A, Q3B, Q4A & Q4B, Q1 3C) If a patrolman thinks he may have to use force in a situation he should use it right after his entrance into the situation in order to gain the advantage of surprise. (QBA, Q3B, 04A & Q4B, 01 3C) Respect for the police in a tough neighborhood depends on the willingness of patrolmen to use force frequently and effectively. (03A, 03B, 04A & 04B, 01 3C) Most officers agree that some force is necessary and justified when a citizen unjustly insults and curses a police officer. (03A, 038, 04A & Q4B, 01 3C) After a patrolman has gained compliance from a person by indicating that the necessary force will be used he can be more sure that the com- pliance will continue if he turns his back than if he gained compliance in some other way. (04A & Q4B, Q1 3C) When arresting a felon in the view of a crowd which has taken the felon's side, there is noth— ing, short of the use. or show of force, a patrolman can do to convince the crowd not to interfere. (Q4a & Q43, 01 3C) Variation of the Likert-type Response Items (Actually is a reason, Don't Know [Or Uncertain], Not Actually a Reason) 1. In the following list there are a number of reasons police officers have given to explain why some citizens assault police. Indicate, for each reason, whether or not you think the reason is actually one of the reasons why these citizens 90 assault police officers. a. Some police use force unlawfully. (04A & Q4B, 01 3c) b. Some police provoke violence. (Q4A & Q4B, 01 3c) c. Police aren't firm enough. (01 3C) Positive—Negative Items ("Show of force"/necessary or unnecessary) 1. Of the above situations, in which ones [if any] do you think a "show of force" would probably be necessary? a. Summonsing an abusive motorist? (01B, 03B. Q4A & Q43, 01 3C) b. Quieting down a family dispute? (QlB, Q3B, 04A & 04B, 01 3C) c. Getting tough juveniles to move from a corner? (01B, 03B, 04A & Q4B, 01 3C) d. Stopping a "psycho" from jumping from a ledge? (01B, 038, 04A & Q4B, 01 30) e. Getting a robbery suspect to dr0p a knife? (01B, 03B, 04A & Q4B, 01 3C) OpenwEnded Items 1. Write out your most likely reply to a motorist you are summonsing who has just told you . . . "you bastard, I haven't done anything wrong. I know you're just trying to shake me down. You cops are all a bunch of crooks." Your reply: (01B, 03B) a. Warn motorist to stop "abuse" (if you don't shut up I'll ram the talk down your throat; shut up or get locked up; open your mouth once more and you're in; when you become abusive you're breaking the law: there is no need for that language; keep your trap_ shut") 91 Physical solution to potential violence ("sit in the car until the summons is written") Threaten use of force ("if you don't shut up I'll cram the talk down your throat") Provoke citizen into arrestable conduct ("if you're under arrest for disorderly conduct, then I'd help him out of the car: final charge might be felonious assault; you're entitled to your opinion. If he continues, provoke him and than make arrest") Briefly explain your above answer: (Do you agree that most officers agree that some force is necessary and justified when a citizen un— justly insults and curses a police officer? IStrongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain, Disagree, Strongly Disagree]) (018) a. Force necessary to maintain respect for officer and law ("pride of the uniform, "teach respect towards the officer, “It would show people they can't walk on police- man, "A.P.O. is a representative of the law, "people feel they can take over the law, "If it would not lower the respect of the police officer, "sometimes 'chastise- ment' is the only way you can gain respect, they will learn to keep their mouth shut and respect an officer, "If nothing were- done, there would be no respect for a police officer.") Officers should not be required to take (that kind of) "personal" abuse. ("I don't think a police officer should be made a target for foul language, "no one likes to be cursed, "It's hard to take some of the insults a citizen gives a cop - A cop is as human as anyone else") 92 Force necessary to stop abuse and to prevent further abuse or violence. (“I think a little force should be used, "force is necessary, "perhaps if you straighten them out on the floor they will act differently, "some people don't understand anything else, "if necessary, "if he is loud and disturbing, "if he gets away with insulting you he may later on assault you") Other sanctions may be applicable ("If he does to the annoyance of others he should be arrested for disorderly conduct, "if a crowd collects you may have to arrest him for disorderly conduct, "he has a right to say what he thinks, but give him a summons.") Not "appropriate" to use force (but only) because of legal or departmental restictions. ("departments 'frown' on it, from my own feelings I could get a complaint.") Force is not justified - is unlawful in this situation ("...can mean the job, "it shouldn't be used, "unlawful to use force, "insults are no reason to use force. "not necessary as long as abuse remains verbal, "don't use force without just cause.") Briefly indicate how you personally feel about the use of some force in such a situation: (Question above) (QlB) a. Use force, the use of force is necessary ("I would like to kick their teeth in, "I think it's just, to show you're not afraid, "use as much as necessary, "respect for the law, "I feel that it's quite necessary, "A little force should be used, "must teach respect if it isn't inborn, so if force is necessary--use it, "that if you have bestowed responsibility of gun upon a person--also feel that he would execute added power to the good of the community, "good, because in some 93 areas you give them an inch and they take a foot, "If force is needed, then that is what is to be done, "the police officer must be stern or the person will have no respect for the law, "should be done and the people won't get out of hand and make a fool of police officer.") Use force only if abuse continues ("If abuse is loud and continues, "tell him to move along, if he doesn't use nightstick on buttocks or knees, "if he is continuous and loud some force should be used, “if he kept it up I'd bag him.") Use force if he attacks officer or resists arrest (not unless officer walked out of hearing range and the driver came after him, "use all necessary force if he should be arrested.") Indicate approximately how many times you have used force while performing police duties in the last six months (GIVE NUMBER): (01 3C) 94 APPENDIX B ITEMS ON THE QUEST FOR AUTHORITY. Likert-type Response Items (Strongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) 1. The present system of state and local laws has undermined the patrolman's authority to a dangerous extent. (03A, Q3B, Q4A & Q43, 01 3C) A number of pressure groups have been successful in getting legislation and court decisions that severely restrict the police actions that patrol- men can take. (03A, 038, 04A & 04B, 01 3C) Generally speaking, patrolmen today have enough legal authority to get their job done efficiently. (Q3A, Q3B, Q4A & Q4B, Ql 3C) A patrolman's authority is not weakened by his giving citizens a few alternative ways in which they can cooperate with the patrolman. (01 3C) Patrolmen generally should not think of dealing with offenders as in any way a "give-and-take" sort of situation. (01 3C) Variation of the Likert-type Response Items (Actually is a reason, Don't Know [Or Uncertain], Not Actually a Reason) 1. In the following list there are a number of reasons police officers have given to explain why some citizens assault police. Indicate, for each reason, whether or not you think the reason is actually one of the reasons why these 95 citizens assault police officers: a. Police are not given enough authority. (04A & 04B. 01 3c) Open-Ended Items 1. In the above assignments I learned the following about handling people: (QlB) a. Be courteous and/but firm ("Kind but stern; courteous but forceful; firm but fair and polite; treat them with courtesy but let them know what you say goes; be courteous and demand respect.") b. Be firm and/or authoritative ("Assume command; use authority; give commands; with authority in your voice; make the public respect your authority; in certain cases you must be mean; stay calm.") What are the three most common reasons why citizens assault police officers? (QlB, Q3B) a. Courts and laws are too lenient ("courts don't back patrolmen; indifference of public.") b. Police are not given sufficient authority ("department restricts patrolmen from knocking heads together; police can't use their weap- ons.") c. Police aren't authoritative enough ("no self confidence; let situations get out of hand.") What are the most important things a patrolman should do in order to serve a summons to a hostile motorist: (Q3B) a. Be alert and/or guard against attack ("keep 96 him in car; get him to leave the car; keep hand on gun; stay at a safe distance; never approach the car from the rear; check com- petence.") Be and remain dominant ("don't let him think he is getting the upper hand; let him know you are the boss; tell him he could be arrested; be firm.") Arrest him if abuse continues ("arrest if it doesn't work; be polite; if he becomes abusive arrest for disorderly conduct,?) MAR 6 7989' MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES )IIHIIH 70 H|||1|ll|||l III III! HI 3 2931032 207