The Evolution of Peel’s Principles: Balancing Force, Public Trust, and Crime Prevention

In the first part of this article about Sir Robert Peel, the “Father of Modern Policing,” we introduced his three core principles. A quick review here (without all the commentary):

- The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

- The ability of the police to perform their duties depends on public approval of police actions.

- Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

To read the full commentary on each of those principles, check out the first part of this article. Here in part two, we’re going to take a look at the next six and discuss each in turn. It’s worth noting, before we get deep into them, that each seems to build on the others. Just like the three core principles state a purpose and then how to achieve it, the following six further discuss and characterize the first three, all nine in total providing a clear concept of policing as we should pursue it. Unfortunately, not all police work is as described but, keeping all of Peel’s Principles in mind, we must honestly ask ourselves: Do we not police as described because the crime rates and contemporary conditions don’t permit it? Or do we not police as described because we now focus too much on enforcement and less on prevention? Let’s see if we can figure that out by the end of this second part of the article/discussion.

Principle #4: The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity to use physical force.

That may seem like simple common sense to many and anathema to others. What it says (in different words) is that the more force we use to gain cooperation, the less cooperation we should ever expect. Note that it doesn’t say the force has to be used on those we’re trying to secure cooperation from. We’re not just talking about those we arrest. The more force we use to make arrests and gain (force) cooperation, the less cooperation we should expect. Period. Full stop. So, if we can find ways to use less force to affect the arrests we have to, the rest of the community will have a more positive outlook about policing in general. We all know that. However, we also all know that sometimes we have no choice and the criminal suspects themselves determine how much force we have to use to protect ourselves, to protect others and to secure the criminal in an arrest scenario. Where we get challenged is when every cell phone is recording and every legacy media outlet hyper-sensationalizes every move we make. We have no choice but to use force sometimes. There are those who make money criticizing us every time they can. It’s a challenge Peel never had to deal with, and I can’t help but wonder what his outlook would be on it.

Principle #5: Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

I can fully understand and support Peel’s principle, but (respectfully) he never had to live in a world where public opinion was so easy to express as widely as can be done today. He put forth that principle in a time where public opinion was usually voiced one person at a time, individual to individual - not one person posting to four social media outlets and reaching (potentially) hundreds of thousands of people. Having that increased weight and availability of public opinion often outweighs an obvious delivery of impartial law enforcement service. The responsibility therefore lays upon us in law enforcement today, to find a way to act with such professionalism and impartiality that an attack on our credibility in the court of public opinion meets with ridicule and scorn. So far, we’re having a challenge with that because our public information officers simply can’t compete with the size and volume of information released from major media outlets. There’s the challenge we need to figure out.

Principle #6: Police use of physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

This principle has found its way into almost every set of General Orders ever written for modern policing. Think about it said this way: “that minimum force necessary to secure order and/or affect the arrest.” Every use of force continuum I ever saw had “uniformed presence,” “dialogue,” and “verbal commands,” on the list before any type of physical force was ever authorized. That said, even the smallest use of force when unquestionably necessary, can be attacked by the media and anyone simply looking for a few minutes of fame. And let’s be brutally honest here: if someone even thinks they can sue a police department for a perceived wrong, they will and the insurance companies will settle out of court to save money. That practice, as much as it makes sense from the business perspective of the insurance companies, implies constant or restful wrong doing on the part of the police agency in question. To regain public trust, as much as we can, we need to start demanding that the insurance companies fight back no matter the cost. If the officer is right and did nothing wrong, no payment should be made simply to save the costs of defending the officer. That’s immoral (in my book) and implies that the officer’s (and agency’s) credibility is expendable as compared to the dollars of the insurance company.

Principle #7: Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

If only “Community Policing” was viewed in this way. In my experience, Neighborhood Watch programs are the closest we get and most of them are difficult, at best, to maintain. Interestingly, if you think about it, if all the above principles - numbers one through six - were successfully enacted, #7 here would be far easier. However, since the public so often is driven to view the police in a negative light, an “us versus them” mentality shared across the spectrum, then it’s near impossible for the public to feel a part of the police and vice versa. If there is a way to get back to this outlook and have it be shared across both the police and community population spectrum, then perhaps we’d get back to the point of working together to prevent crime rather than simply trying to detect and punish it after the fact.

Principle #8: Police should always direct their attention strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

Here is a challenge we’ll have difficulty overcoming. To “usurp the powers of the judiciary” isn’t something any agency can do by itself. However, when you consider today’s reality of red-light cameras, speed cameras and the fact that fines from moving violations go to general budgets and court costs, it’s easy to understand how the public might perceive law enforcement efforts as nothing more than an attempt to tax the populace in another way under the color of law. It’s even more disheartening when you attend open city, county and/or state governmental discussions wherein the monies generated from any enforcement effort are estimated and then the discussion inevitably goes to how to increase the revenue from those enforcement efforts. The moment the focus is on revenue rather than public safety, we’ve crossed an ethical boundary that is unacceptable and must be rolled back. We must return to an enforcement model that focuses on the increase of public safety, and only that, with no consideration given to revenue generation. Public Safety cost should be accepted as a 100% loss for any budget as it’s a service provided with no expectation of payment in return. If a governmental body posts an expected revenue amount from a public safety agency, the impartiality of that agency is immediately and understandably suspect.

Principle #9: The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

We have more statistical data available today than we know what to do with. We have so much that it’s difficult to manage or understand and there is an assortment of companies whose only mission is to sell services around the collection, storage, management, analysis and reporting of all that data. While that is fantastic when it comes to managing resources, it presents a challenge in that anyone who studies statistics will tell you how easily they can be manipulated. Statistics are fantastic if used as they are strongest: interpret what the data says. Don’t filter it. Don’t modify it. Don’t pick and choose what data points you want. You can’t go into data analysis assuming what you want the data to say. You have to go into it with the outlook of, “Okay. Let’s see what we learn from this.” Too many jurisdictions have the same, or higher, crime rates as always but the PIO is tasked with being a salesperson to show off the great nature of the agency or the fantastic job being done - when it’s really not. The data gets manipulated and lower crime rates (as an example) get reported. The public is not stupid. They see and know higher crime. They live in it. So, it’s insulting to them if the police reports say, “Oh, crime is down 30% in the past three months.”

In Closing:

We must be as honest and transparent with the public we serve as is possible. “Possible” shouldn’t be controlled by politics, worries of lawsuits, etc. Possible should be based on unfiltered data collected, community meetings, public feedback, etc. Delivery of service in preventing crime should be the primary focus with arresting and punishing criminals as a secondary mission when prevention is unsuccessful. I would recommend that you and your agency review Peel’s Principles and see what you can do or change to increase your efficiency in prevention and building that community relationship that is so necessary to our success today.