1 Militarization of Police: Efficacy and Impact on Public Perceptions 2 Introduction On August 13, 2014, Americans looked on in shock as news crews documented scores of demonstrators protesting the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The surprise came not from the protestors exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, but rather how the protestors were greeted by a heavily-militarized local law enforcement unit. The phalanx of officers, adorned in sophisticated tactical gear, brandished military-grade assault rifles, and held their position in front of a heavily-fortified armored vehicle. This show of force illustrated the increasing militarization of police across the country thanks to the federal government which has quietly, yet heavily, furnished departments at every level of American law enforcement with military-grade weaponry previously reserved for the United States Armed Forces. Police departments’ use of military-grade weaponry and tactics during community encounters, like the one in Ferguson, has become troublingly prevalent throughout the country and necessitates further analysis. This review examines recent research into police militarization including its effectiveness and impact on public perceptions of police. Most importantly, this review illustrates the fact that the effectiveness of police militarization is often quantified differently. Background on Police Militarization The militarization of police has been a long, slow process dating back decades. As weapons and technology have become more advanced, it has behooved police departments to stay up to date on these items so as to better execute its law enforcement endeavors. However, this process was greatly expedited thanks to President Richard Nixon declaring America’s “War on Drugs” in 1971. To better combat the crime-infused drug epidemic of the late 80s and early 90s, Congress passed the 1990 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) permitting the transfer of military equipment to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies engaged in drug interdictions. Then, in 1997, Section 1033 was added to the NDAA allowing for the expansion of the transfer of military equipment to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of increasing general arrest capabilities. The immediate impact of the 1033 program was 3 profound considering that within its first three years the program handled 3.4 million orders for military gear from 11,000 police agencies (Balko, 2014). Since the addition of the 1033 Program to the NDAA, the federal government has provided more than $5.4 billion in surplus military gear to law enforcement agencies (Harris, 2017). Though the militarization of police has been a decades-long process dating back to Civil Rights Era unrest, the 1033 Program greatly expedited the endeavor in the 1990s. Contemporary research examining police militarization is limited and fledgling, only now entering the mainstream after the chaotic flashpoint taking place in Ferguson, Missouri garnered national attention. Even so, much of the existing research into police militarization begins with an examination of the 1033 Program. Review of Contemporary Research Effectiveness of Police Militarization On Policing Endeavors The effectiveness of carrying out law-enforcement endeavors by departments equipped with military-grade weaponry and specialized tactics for their SWAT teams, courtesy of the 1033 Program is often cited as a rationale for police militarization. The problem is, however, that the literature is so limited that there is little agreement about what constitutes “effectiveness.” Some recent research has revealed that the receipt of surplus armaments via the 1033 Program is of great benefit to law enforcement agencies in terms of reducing citizen complaints, violence against police, and the number of civilian deaths. More specifically, according to Harris et.al (2017), securing tactical items by way of the 1033 program is effective in reducing citizen complaints made to departments, reducing violence against police, and does not increase the probability or number of civilian deaths. In the 2017 study, Harris et.al constructed a detailed longitudinal, count-level dataset combining publicly available data with hand-collected information on citizen complaints from over 900 annual reports from police departments across the country from 1997 to 2012. This data was merged at the county-year level with data on the receipt of tactical gear from the 1033 Program, reported crimes, arrests, 4 and clearances from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as well as economic data from the US Department of Census and The Bureau of Economic Analysis. Unsurprisingly, the study revealed that the receipt of tactical items from the 1033 Program provided greater protection for officers. A 1% increase in the receipt of tactical items reduced gun assaults on police officers by 0.1%. Similarly, the more fortified a department was with tactical items, the greater protected its officers were. Increasing the number of military-grade assault vehicles by 10% decreased assaults on police by 3.5%. Among the study’s most important findings was that there was no relationship between the receipt of tactical items and arrestrelated deaths. It would be logical to assume that an increase in tactical items would increase the number of these deaths because any police-suspect interfacing would have the potential to be more violent. However, the results of the study showed no effect on arrest-related deaths when a department received more tactical items. However, the findings of Harris et.al also exposed one area in which providing police departments with military-grade weaponry has no added benefit to departments’ productivity. The number of case “closures,” a critical component when gaging a department’s level of productivity, are largely unaffected by the receipt of tactical items (Harris et.al, 2017). A case is “closed” when evidence gathered by officers has led to the arrest and subsequent indictment of an individual, at which point the police are no longer involved. Case closures are a good measure of a department’s productivity and effectiveness because it illustrates how efficiently a case can be solved after being brought to the attention of a department. When examining closures of substantiated reported crimes, Harris et.al found that the receipt of tactical items only appeared to affect closures related to vehicle thefts, in which case the number of closures diminished. One possible reason that Harris et.al offered for this phenomenon was that it reflected a shift in policing priorities from property crimes to drug interdictions. Evaluating the productivity of departments by using the measure of closures is an important step that researchers should continue to take when examining the efficacy of police militarization. Additionally, proponents of police 5 militarization, and the 1033 Program, should not presume that providing tactical items to law enforcement will make those departments more creative, cunning, or industrious in their crime-solving pursuits. Other researchers believe the veracity of the claim that militarization contributes to better policing effectiveness cannot be established without hinging on mostly anecdotal evidence. Moreover, these researchers have attempted to discover the effectiveness of police militarization by looking not at the effects of the military-grade items received, as Harris et.al had done, but the receipt of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams that use such items. According to Mummolo (2018), obtaining a SWAT team is not an effective law enforcement measure in terms of reducing crime or improving officer safety. To test the efficacy claims of using militarized tactics in policing, researcher Jonathan Mummolo used a nationwide panel to estimate the effects of acquiring a SWAT team on violent crime, officer fatalities and assaults, as well as an agency-month panel in the state of Maryland to test whether the increased deployment of SWAT teams affected these outcomes. The results from 2010 to 2014 indicated that SWAT team deployments exerted no detectable effects on prevalence of violent crime or improvement of officer safety with regards to fatalities or assaults. One compelling reason that Mummolo offered for the minimal impact SWAT teams had in Maryland was the fact that the vast majority of SWAT team usage occurred in non-emergency scenarios. In fact, less than 5% of SWAT team deployments involved a "barricade" scenario, which usually involves an armed suspect refusing to surrender (Mummolo, 2018). With that, the limitations to Mummolo’s research are obvious. Because neither the adoption nor deployment of SWAT teams are randomly assigned, but based upon situational needs, the causal interpretation of Mummolo’s results should be made with extreme caution. Similarly, the results gleaned from Maryland may not be generalizable across all states. The limited literature that does exist on police militarization reveals that researchers should develop more definitive measures of effectiveness before writing-off militarization as a dangerous policing trend. In other words, how should one define the effectiveness of providing police departments with advanced tactical items for use by their SWAT teams? Harris et.al found that providing tactical items to police was 6 effective in promoting officer safety without increasing the prevalence of arrest-related deaths of civilians, but had no effect on departments clearing more cases. Yet, according to Mummolo (2018), obtaining a SWAT team, a unit heavily-furnished with tactical items had no discernable impact on the prevalence of violent crime across various Maryland locales and did not improve officer safety. Until researchers agree on what constitutes effectiveness, or at least acknowledges effectiveness can be measured in myriad ways, progress in this area will be limited. Impact of Police Militarization On Public Perceptions Results from a 2016 poll concerning policing in America found that 54% of Americans believe police using military equipment is going too far, while 46% say it’s necessary for law enforcement purposes (Ekins, 2016). The survey, conducted by the renowned Cato Institute, brought to light an important idea when considering police militarization: public perception. The public’s attitudes towards police is a crucial element undergirding police legitimacy and can have potentially deleterious impacts on departments' effectiveness. Conducting investigations is just one of the many functions police departments engage in and it requires a great deal of community assistance. But, negative community attitudes towards police often go part-and-parcel with a lack of trust in police which can greatly inhibit this process. Researchers have begun to examine the ways in which police militarization further complicates this idea by looking at how the public responds to images of heavily militarized police units. Recently, one study showed that a substantial proportion of people who had a strong belief in the legitimacy of the police, trust in the federal government, and trust the local police, were supporters of police militarization (Fox et.al, 2018). Unsurprisingly, the 2018 study which examined a sample of 702 American adults using an online survey service, also found that those with a low belief in police legitimacy, low trust in the federal government, and low trust in the local police opposed police militarization (Fox et. al, 2018). These findings comport with the idea that depending upon a person's 7 orientation toward the law and police in general, their support and perceptions of police militarization tend to be shaped along those lines. Furthermore, the research suggests that police militarization can be either effective or ineffective in policing endeavors depending upon the measure. Other evidence has shown that citizens react negatively to mere images of militarized police units in the media, much less their actual appearance. According to Mummolo (2018), people are less willing to fund police agencies, and support having police patrol their neighborhoods if they possess heavilymilitarized units such as SWAT teams. In the same study that scrutinized the effectiveness of SWAT teams in reducing crime and promoting officer safety, Mummolo also found that media images of heavily-militarized police units engender negative responses in community members. To estimate the effects of militarized policing on public perceptions of law enforcement, Mummolo conducted a survey experiment using a convenience sample from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and one from Survey Sampling International. In this simple experimental design, participants were provided a brief news article concerning an unnamed police chief’s desire to secure more funding for his department, accompanied by a randomly-assigned image conveying a different level of police militarization. The control image featured five male, traditionally- uniformed officers (e.g., blue uniforms, brimmed caps, and standard side arms). The “low” militarization conditions showed five male officers with “riot gear” and batons or with body armor and assault rifles. Finally, the “high” militarization condition added an armored vehicle. This design allowed for an estimate of the causal effect of seeing militarized police on attitudes toward law enforcement relative to seeing more traditionally equipped police forces. The results of the experiment indicated that effects on confidence in police were generally negative and that respondents who viewed the “high” militarization images were less supportive of funding the police than those who did not (Mummolo 2018). Still, more studies examining community sentiments regarding police militarization need to be undertaken before any broad conclusions can be drawn by researchers. Using a variety of methods and measures to assess public perceptions of police militarization would likewise be helpful in contextualizing 8 the data already collected by researchers. For instance, Harris et. al, suggests that police militarization does not engender entirely negative responses from the public. In their research Harris et. al found that every 1% increase in the number of tactical items procured by law enforcement agencies, via the 1033 Program, led to a corresponding .28% decrease in citizen complaints brought to that agency. However, not complaining about something and being satisfied with it are far from equal. Any number of reasons exist for Harris et.al's findings in this instance, including the fact that already aggressive police departments who acquire sophisticated tactical items may induce more fear in community members who are rendered too intimidated to complain. Conclusion and Discussion As with most investigatory pursuits, but particularly with regards to the militarization of police, the more research the better. More research must be conducted before fully understanding the implications of militarization on policing effectiveness, public perceptions of police, and certainly before changes in law enforcement policy occur. In other words, researchers should ask themselves what definitions of effectiveness should be used when evaluating the provision of police departments with advanced tactical items for use by their SWAT teams as a form criminal justice policy? One researcher found that providing tactical items to police was effective only in that it promoted officer safety without increasing the prevalence of arrest-related deaths of civilians (Harris et.al, 2017). However, that researcher found that providing tactical items to departments was ineffective when it came to departments’ ability to clear more cases. According to another researcher, obtaining a SWAT team, a unit heavily-furnished with tactical items, had no discernable impact on the prevalence of violent crime across various Maryland locales and did not improve officer safety (Mummolo, 2018). Thus, this researcher’s findings showed that obtaining a militarized unit was ineffective at reducing violent crime and ineffective in terms of improving officer safety. SWAT teams are a necessary tool for law enforcement during violent emergency situations when the use of advanced weapons and tactics, supplied by the 1033 Program, is required. But militaristic shows of 9 force, like the one in Ferguson, have frequently occurred in public view despite the chagrin of many. Consequently, communities across the country have condemned these occurrences, and the trend toward militarization in general, as unnecessary and contradictory to the community-oriented approach to policing that many departments claim to espouse. The findings of this review illustrate the fact that it is imperative that more research be done examining this contemporary policing phenomenon because the body of literature is so sparse. Researchers and academicians are not uniform in their measurement of the effectiveness of heavily militarized police units, and the efficacy of police militarization as policy, making it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions. The need for researchers to develop more definitive measures of effectiveness, or, at least acknowledge that effectiveness can be measured in various ways when it comes to police militarization is profound. Likewise, researchers must reckon with the fact that public perceptions also have a profound impact on police legitimacy and can therefore impact the efficacy of these militaristic trends in policing policy. What is clear, however, is that no matter how the effectiveness of militarized police units is measured, whether it is in terms of the number of case closures, the reduction in crime rates, or the level of public satisfaction, the more categories of measurement that can be employed the better. All avenues and angles of police militarization need to be examined before writing-off militarization as a dangerous policing trend. 10 References: Balko, R. (2013). “Rise of the warrior cop: The militarization of America's police forces. PublicAffairs.” Ekins, E. E. (2016). “Policing in America: understanding public attitudes toward the police.” Results from a national survey. Fox, B., Moule Jr, R. K., & Parry, M. M. (2018). “Categorically complex: A latent class analysis of public perceptions of police militarization.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 58, 33-46. Harris, Matthew C., Jinseong Park, Donald J. Bruce, and Matthew N. Murray. 2017. “Peacekeeping Force: Effects of Providing Tactical Equipment to Local Law Enforcement: Dataset.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20150525 Mummolo, J. (2018). “Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9181-9186. 1 Final Project Option: You may choose to complete an annotated bibliography, as described here: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/annotated_bibliograp hies/annotated_bibliography_samples.html • Use the APA style bibliography • The purpose should be to summarize AND evaluate the source in the ways discussed for the literature review (how is the methodology, etc.) YOU MAY STILL SUBMIT A LITERATURE REVIEW, DESCRIPTION IS THE SAME AS BEFORE. Literature Review A. Topic is “Law Enforcement Against Color” THE OUTLINE IS ATTACHED BELOW!!!!! B. Search the literature for at least 4 articles from peer-reviewed journals. C. Make sure you use articles that are cited often in other research (the library and Google scholar can help you figure this out). D. Write a literature review. a. 5 pages minimum, double-spaced, size 12 font, Times New Roman b. Arrange the research thematically- do not simply review each article c. What does the body of research tell us, on the whole? d. What questions or gaps in the literature remain? e. What might be some avenues of further study→ what should future research focus on? Any implications for policy/practice? E. Use APA format for in-text citations and Reference list (you don’t need to do a cover page, abstract, or running head unless you really want to practice those things)→Check out this APA Resource guide for more help. your lit review will be submitted via appropriate link online for safe assign. NO PLAIGARISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have also included an example lit review paper for example……… What is a Literature Review? A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area. A literature review has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the 2 situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant. What kind of literature review am I writing? Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology. But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made. Start Writing (And Writing = Re-writing) Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion: “However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).” Use evidence In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid. 3 Be selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Use quotes sparingly Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor. Summarize and synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work. Keep your own voice While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying. Use caution when paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. Information above adapted from the UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center, Literature Reviews Running head: LAW ENFORCEMENT BRUTALITY ON AFRICAN-AMERICANS 1 PAPER OUTLINE Topic: Law Enforcement Brutality on African-Americans I. Introduction Law enforcement brutality is perceived as an abuse of authority when officer use unwarranted and excessive force to deal with a member of the public (Alang, 2017). Incidents of police brutality targeting black males have resulted in widespread protests as the issue attracted public attention in the United States. Research findings show African-Americans are at high risk of experiencing police brutality compared to Whites (Alang, 2017). Further, the empirical report generated from a database of documented Black killings indicates males aged 15 to 34 years were nine times more like to than any other racial or ethnic group to be killed by law enforcement agents. II. The notion of Police Brutality Theorists claim law enforcement officer adopt authoritarian behavior by virtue of the responsibility to control people. The police often respond to emergency and are more likely to make the wrong decision. Ironically, the police role is meant to reduce community tension, but regarding widespread cases of brutality, their actions trigger public protects and crisis. III. U.S law enforcement officers propagating Racial disparities Racial tensions in the United States indicate widening rifts between blacks and law enforcement officers. The concerns of police fatally shoot African-American have raised eyebrows leading to demanding push intervention to address officers' bias that results in deciding to shoot people of black origin. Reese (2015), the shooting of innocent black assumed to engage in criminal activities is happening at an alarming rate. IV. The group at risk of police brutality The males of African-American origin are racially profiled as criminals in the United States. The American Psychology Association condemned the use of excessive force and brutal treatment against Black males. The action by Mental health organization to advocate rights and prevention mental health conditions affecting the majority of the youth and middle-aged population (American Psychiatric Association, 2018). V. Implications of brutality LAW ENFORCEMENT BRUTALITY ON AFRICAN-AMERICANS 2 a) Death Among the African-Americans who were shot by authorities, 25% of such shooting led to death (Reese, 2015). Further, unarmed African-American boys and middle age men without criminal records get killed when police use excessive force. b) Injuries Police misuse of authority resulted in unnecessary physical injuries. c) Mental Health issues APA claim research on mental health has established a causal relationship racial discrimination in the police force and manifestation of poor mental health outcomes. Evidence of cases of brutality clearly shows explicit or implicit bias associated with anxiety, depression, suicide ideations, increase use of alcohol and substance abuse (American Psychiatric Association, 2018) d) Large population Black community incarcerated Evidence from previous studies describe cases of concentration AfricanAmericans in state prisons. e) Discrimination created a negative perception against AfricanAmerican The white and other non-Blacks developed stereotypes and prejudiced that suggests AfricanAmerican are all criminals, which it may not be accurate. Police brutality has elicited negative thoughts among the Native White leading emerge of “White supremacist” a racist group that victimizes black community. VI. Conclusion The widespread cases of police brutality against the black community have significant implication for people living within the United States' borders. Law enforcement officers use excessive force creating racial disparity among U.S residents Recommendations a) Policy Review, Change And Implementation The United State Department of Judicial should implement particular prosecutor policy to ensure law enforcement agencies are accountable for LAW ENFORCEMENT BRUTALITY ON AFRICAN-AMERICANS 3 actions. The review of the system will facilitate investigation of prevalent misconduct of the police officer against the African-American community b) Legislation Intervention To Address Brutality Against AfricanAmericans New laws are required to protect a vulnerable black male from killing and unwarranted confinements. Enacting laws will provide a framework to guide law enforcement officers on the best ways to deal with the suspects, especially African-American males. LAW ENFORCEMENT BRUTALITY ON AFRICAN-AMERICANS 4 References Alang, S., McAlpine, D., McCreedy, E., & Hardeman, R. (2017). Police brutality and black health: setting the agenda for public health scholars. American journal of public health, 107(5), 662-665. American Psychiatric Association. (2018). Position Statement on Police Brutality and Black Males. Reese, D. (2015). Criminal Justice Disparity between African American and Caucasian Males: Police Use of Excessive and Deadly Force in the United States, 1991-2014 (Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Michigan University).
Purchase answer to see full attachment