Police brutality can be defined as a civil rights violation that occurs when a lawful police purpose is accomplished using force exceeding what’s reasonably necessary. Excessive force in policing arouses so much emotion and has many conflicting theories, hence, the importance of exploring this topic with an objective mind. But while striving for accuracy, what injustices are overlooked? We will use known sociological theories to explore this phenomenon and conclude with what I believe to be the more convincing argument.
Conflict Theory:
This is an essential part of understanding brutality. It suggests that the states main purpose is to function as is an instrument for the ruling class. It’s a particularly useful tool for maintaining oppression and keeping the status quo. ‘The main function of the police is to preserve the status quo of inequality and to assist the powerful to exploit the powerless (Holmes et al. 2008; Lersch 1998).’ Society’s economically marginalized and politically powerless and/or unaware are more likely to be fall victim and make formal complaints against aggressive officers. There is a systemic attempt to distance law enforcers from civilians thus, creating an epidemic of emotionless-power hungry individuals that cannot relate to citizens on a human level. The gradual dehumanization of civilians is influenced internally through socialization and police training and by ruling external institutions of power. This belief, deriving from Marxism is also supported by the minority (racial) threat theory which links racial disparity in the criminal justice system to the disproportionate efforts to implement more rigorous and radicalized practices in a continuous effort to protect the interests of the dominant class. Racial, economic, political and symbolic threats must be controlled and eliminated. So in many ways, race and class determine police-civilian interactional dynamics. ‘The existing inequality at play here is widely recognized and refuted by many. The almost automatic assumption that subordinate groups are composed of transgressors and should thus be controlled is also often present in everyday life interactions (Petersilia 1983; Walker 1994).’
While maintaining objective thinking, we can use the Functionalist Theory to expand on the micro-decisions made by individuals. This theory explains that while two individuals may have an identical occupation within the same department, their attitudes towards citizens may differ during civilian encounters. It’s a matter of perception, hypothetically speaking, if one officer assumes the role of a crime fighter and associates marginalized citizens with criminality, he is more likely to be hostile towards them during an interaction. Occupational or organizational values and beliefs are implemented as a framework to outline the appropriate conduct that all individuals must observe, however they will always be subject to deviation. Officers and civilians learn their behaviours from their surroundings, sociological backgrounds, and familial relationships. People will view police as violators and oppressors; while officer’s view marginalized groups as criminals. Thus, some civilians grow dissident; they grow an instinct to rebel against the police and a clearly oppressive system. Institutionalization of an abstract group identity (Matsueda 1992). Society at large subsequently accepts their authority and interacts with them in a rather submissive manner. Finally, the officers internalize their new occupational identity and enact their expected role to maintain social control in society. This could explain why some have developed a distorted belief that the general public solely shapes policing laws and regulations. On the contrary, increased force it’s simply a direct response to increasing crime rates, social decay and lack of appropriate resourcing to tackle social-economical factors affecting crime.
“Police violence is not seen as a social control outcome determined by the interests of dominant groups, but the proportional response of police to higher civilian violence or other departmental-environmental factors that can make policing more difficult and dangerous” (Kane 2003).
The explanation of interactional dynamic between law enforcement and civilians oversimplifies the phenomenon. This does not explore the micro-decisions made by all parties involved. Macro-level factors like race and socio-economical factors alone cannot explain the individual behaviors. This continues to fail to explain why some police officers commit brutal acts towards citizens while others in the same department do not. Lersch writes “acknowledging the links between the different levels of analysis provides a more accurate and holistic understanding of this phenomenon” (Lersch 1998:82). Individual input into society always has ramifications, whether good or bad.
To conclude, the concept and exercise of control is imperative in the occupation of law enforcement. An officer’s primary objective is maintaining social order, which naturally comes with a legitimate use of force. Officers are bound to encounter undeniable degrees of external and internal counter-controls. They face difficult internal debates as to the precise boundaries they must work within and how much authority/force they can exercise at a particular time and place.
Social Conflict Theory provides undeniable insight into the policing occupation regarding marginalization of those from poorer socio-economical background, institutional arrangements and political influence. Marxism tells us that we weak will be vilified and seen as the ones to be controlled. But there are few repercussions for deviant law enforcers who abuse their authority; the law they stretch and break protects them. If officers perceive greater risk of punishment for engaging in illicit violence, he will be less likely to abuse his authority against innocent civilians (Lersch and Mieczkowski 2005).
Although symbolic interactionism helps explain the intricacies of individual police brutality occurrences, neither provides sufficient evidence to that gives a definitive explanation as to why police brutality exists in the way that it does. My conclusion is that it’s impossible to understand this phenomenon without taking into consideration all forms of sociological theory regarding police brutality. However, I believe its deeply rooted in systemic negligence, race, socio-economic background and accountability. While we ignore society turning on itself, who will be held accountable for this brutality?