Examine the Distinction between Liberal and Authoritarian Police Forces

Authors Avatar by nathanielkinyanjuigmailcom (student)




By (Name)





         The Police force in England and the USA was invented roughly between the years 1825 to 1865 so as to counter the rise in crime rates during that period. In addition to plummeting crime rates, the elites used the police force to act in instances of collective actions such as defiant crowds and riots. In the contemporary society, police force and policing play a critical role in post-conflict development. The duty of police officers is to enforce the laws of the society as well as ensure citizens and property are safe. Police are also used in reconciliation process as well as ensuring that they manage conflict in such a way that chances of reoccurrence are minimal. Criminologists and international relation experts divide policing into two major sections i.e. the authoritarian police force and the liberal police force. It is, therefore, imperative to note that international relationship experts define liberal police force as composed of police officers that are non-conservative people that foster equality and liberty, they have personal beliefs that the government should be proactive in supporting social and political changes whereas some international relation analysts describe authoritarian police force as those police officers that favor and enforce strict obedience to the government at the expense of his freedom. This form of policing explains the intense brutality experienced in the police force (Derek 2004, 89).

         Authoritarian police force mainly are composed of two categories, the traditional authoritarian as well as the bureaucratic authoritarian police forces. The traditional authoritarian police force act is basing their belief that the person in authority i.e. the leader of the nation should be in power by all means. The ensure that the leader is in authority through dedicating all their loyalty to the ruling to party by fact that the leader rightfully owns the title of being a leader and that title should be  at all time. On the other hand, the bureaucratic authoritarian regime is composed of the police force as well as the military force that act realistically within the context and boundary of bureaucratic mentality. The mode of operation by the authoritarian police raises questions on whether the police are on acquiring negative behavior or to be brutal. This act of brutalism is attributed to the psychological predisposition that the authoritarian police force has that they have to be ruthless so as to instill fear on opposing individuals and groups as well as to acquire respect. A case study of authoritarian police brutality is in the case where a police officer, Darren Wilson, chocked a mere civilian, Eric Garner to death. It is thus evident that authoritarian policing is very different from the liberal police force (O’Malley 2007, 76).

         However, some criminologist such as Mead argue that the authoritarian police force can relate or in a way resemble liberal police force. He posits that the society offers the delight to the value of freedom, he also recognizes that at liberty only exists in instances when the state of the order have been fulfilled. People do not enjoy being free if crime is an issue to their wellbeing, therefore, for liberty to exist in the police force, there must be some degree of authoritarianism so as to regulate the conduct of the citizens by show of might by the police force. As opposed to giving much emphasis on the state, Liberal police officers draw their thoughts from the society, which is as an intricate relation of exteriority and interiority concerning the country. Therefore, Mead says that the government can attain the state of full democracy by replicating the values and beliefs established in the society. Other criminologists such as Facoult argue that the liberal police force is far much different from the authoritarian police force. Policing using the liberal approach means that the police force puts the question of order as well as allowing its citizens have freedom as a priority and use the opposition of authoritarian way of policing as a means of achieve those goals (Rojek 2012, 126).

         Since the late medieval of inception of the police forces, the liberal police force has been relying on various agencies in addition to building upon the territorial state. This strategy by the liberal police prompts them to form partnerships or to come into contract with various agencies of interest to the state of policing in a nation that may be non-governmental. The officers with liberal ideology, therefore, are attached to the civil society and tries to give much effort in providing security to its activities. They make this possible by adopting a strategy known as facilitating role where the police force does not impede the sequence of things but let's regulation take a natural course. Thus, the police task in liberal perspective is to enable or guide rather than prescribe or direct (Myers 2007, 74).

Join now!

         The authoritarian police force, on the other hand, conditions the police officer to be on a constant lookout so as to identify and punish the people who break the laws or defy the conventional laws. They seem to direct and force the drafted laws on to the citizens. These laws are drafted by the government that the police are much willing to put their life at stake while defending it. A study to determine whether authoritarian policing is dominant over the liberal one showed that a bigger percentage out of the 116 graduating recruits showed authoritarian traits as opposed to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay