August 1999

As we ease into a new century it is a good time to look at some trends in our society that are impacting law enforcement organizations and operations. As you know in a fast changing society, predicting the direction of trends is about as difficult as predicting the weather. However, if we limit our observations to the next few years, there is reasonable possibility of being accurate--provided that nothing unusual, unpredictable, or disastrous happens. The best prediction I can make with assurance is that several unforeseen events will occur which will alter the course of current trends.

The purpose of this article, however, is not so that you can plan department strategies. Rather, its aim is to help us recognize the law enforcement issues that we need to discuss, observe, and more accurately identify. It is through the process of observation and discussion that we will more clearly define pertinent issues. At that time, we can then begin to devote appropriate resources to either blunt a negative trend or take advantage of a positive one to strengthen our operations and streamline our organizations.

Overview

I don't think it is an overstatement to say that law enforcement has never been better in North America than it is today. Over the past fifty years, our profession has made significant progress both in building our reputation as professionals and in securing--and maintaining--a high level of public trust. This is not to say that law enforcement operations have been totally successful or without flaw. We all know that this is not so. For example, we have not won the war on drugs, nor have we lost the war. We have held the line so to speak, while other institutions in our society, which have more responsibility for our drug problem, have tried various solutions. While parents, schools, public health agencies, and churches still struggle to find ways to eliminate, or treat drug abuse, our police officers are on the street trying to contain the problem. The work of these officers is brave, wretchedly redundant, and without adequate recognition. That they will not succeed in curtailing the drug problem is a given--that they continue to hold the line is noble!

Our increased professionalism in the past century is further evidenced by the significant elevation of employment standards; establishment of quality recruit training programs throughout North America; and the employment of a significant number of minorities. We have embraced new management techniques, modernized department management and operations through the use of high technology, and developed incredible new investigative techniques. We have reduced the number of the incidents that invite excessive force complaints and made strides in developing ways to control violent people without the use of deadly force. These are but a few examples of how our law enforcement agencies differ from those of a century or half century ago. By any professional standard, the record is indicative of how we have made significant progress.

If we accept that law enforcement has improved significantly, it would also be fair to say that we still have several problems to address. First, we still have too much crime. While law enforcement is not terribly effective in preventing crime, we still need to do more work in solving crime once committed. Second, we must increase our vigilance against corruption within the department. Corruption has always been one of our most serious internal problems. My guess is that incidents of corruption will increase in the coming years. I am concerned not only about common acts of corruption, such as bribery, but also about the abuse of power, the arrogance of power displayed by some organizations, and the willingness of law enforcement organizations to cater to powerful political forces. Additionally, the lack of continuing training programs for officers above the entry level continues to be disturbing. We need to adjust our selection criteria to reflect law enforcement's need to have technology-oriented officers or officers willing to learn how to use a computer--or other technology--as an investigative tool or to use technology to investigate computer-related crime.

Crime

The FBI's Uniform Crime Report statistics show that the occurrences of serious crime dropped about 7% in 1998. This is the seventh consecutive year, in the 1990's, that serious crime statistics have fallen from the previous year's statistics. Presently, our crime rate is similar to that we experienced in the mid-1980's. While the crime rate for the largest cities has fallen considerably during this period, the rate for suburban areas has shown less reduction. On balance, though, the current numbers offer considerable hope that the crime wave we have seen in the past thirty years is beginning to ease. For example, the number of homicides in the United States dropped to below 17,000 per year in 1998. This is the lowest number of homicides since 1976 and about 35% lower than experienced in 1994.

One factor that makes these statistics interesting is that few observers in recent years predicted that crime rates would fall. It was generally believed--particularly by me--that the 15% increase in the crime-prone youth population from 1996 through 2006 would send crime rates sky rocketing. Up to now, this prediction has not manifested itself in any observable way.

As with most social trends, it is almost impossible to isolate the exact reason(s) why a particular trend moves in the direction that it does--what follows are a few possibilities. With the currently diminishing crime rate, it is reasonable to conclude that aggressive law enforcement programs and increased incarceration rates and length has eliminated a considerable number of criminals from--even the possibility--of preying on society. Another factor that may have contributed to the crime rate decline could be that our central cities' crack cocaine epidemic has eased somewhat--leading to a reduction in the violent acts of competing drug dealers against each other and/or against their deadbeat customers. Also, our economy during the past decade has resulted in a considerable reduction in unemployment figures. Low unemployment logically translates into the easing of individual financial stress. This leads to a reduction in those crimes, such as; burglary, larceny, and family abuse in which financial stress has always been a contributing factor. The proactive efforts of specialized police units directed against youth gangs have also been very successful in reducing violent crime by youth gangs. Other law enforcement programs, such as Project Exile in Richmond, Code Blue in Fort Worth, and numerous community orientated police programs throughout North America are producing their intended results.

During the next five year period, I say it is reasonable to conclude that overall crime rates will continue to drop. However, there are two unknown factors that bear watching. First, will the economy stay relatively robust? Free--if you will--from a serious recession! Most economists predict that, in the next five years, we will have a recession. How serious this recession is anyone's guess. However, if unemployment figures rise to eight or nine percent, and are sustained for a considerable time, then the decline in crime would halt and--perhaps--modestly increase.

Second, we still have an increase of several million young people in their crime-prone years. Hopefully, these young people will not become involved in criminal activities to the extent that we have observed in young people in the last fifty years. Given the state of public education and the youth population's continuing abuse of drugs, as well as a nihilistic culture that influences their behavior, it may be wishful thinking that they will not have a propensity for criminal activity. Whatever the case with the economy's state or the impact of more young adults, there are several areas of criminal activity that will continue to increase over the next five years.

Outrageous Crime

The first area of concern is what I would call outrageous crime. The tragic events in Littleton, Colorado; Conyers, Georgia; and the copycat incidents that followed in high schools throughout the states, are examples of outrageous crime. While it is true that overall school violence has diminished recently, it is also true that the combination of extremely disturbed youths easily influenced by television, the Internet, video games, and movies have found an outlet for their dementia through acts of extreme violence. However, it is difficult to pinpoint a single cause for outrageous violence like this. Those who say these incidents are caused by poor parenting, violence on television, poor supervision by teachers, access to deadly weapons, drug abuse, or a combination of these influences are partially correct. However, there is another factor that we rarely acknowledge. Freedom! Outrageous crimes occur when demented individuals are allowed to do as they wish without any control, supervision, or oversight by parents, teachers, community standards, health professionals, or law enforcement.

What we have seen in the United States in the last fifty years is an explosion of individual rights. As the list of individual rights expanded, various social controls over individual behavior eroded. The fear of social sanctions against an individual for their behavior was removed. No longer would that small percentage of people--who wish to be considered outcasts, rebels, or just different--worry about what anyone thought of they're bizarre behavior. With little or no support from other institutions, such as an extended family, schools, and the criminal justice system, the parents--or in many cases the single parent--lost what little influence and control they had over the child. Ironically, our society's response to this reformation of social control and individual freedom was to celebrate some of these individuals or groups as heroes in our culture. In doing so we have given our discontented youth ample role models to encourage their misguided path to personal destruction.

In this social atmosphere it should not be surprising that a few individuals, seeking recognition, or revenge, can wreak havoc on a school, a workplace, or other establishment where individuals gather. This is particularly so when our society exhibits an unwillingness to hold individuals responsible for their behavior until it is far too late. I do not know of any recent act of outrageous violence in which the potential violent behavior of the individual was not in open view prior to the commission of the violent act. In the recent school violence cases, a later examination of the involved boys' bedrooms found ample evidence of their state of mind and intent to cause destruction. Other evidence was found in their school work, conversations, and behavior--yet, neither the parents, teachers, neighbors, nor social workers seemed aware of the potential danger--or worse--they did not want to interfere.

In my view, there is no indication that our society is moving to re-establish social controls, to help parents control their children's behavior, or to find the appropriate ratio between freedom/responsibility. Inevitably, outrageous crimes will continue to occur, if not in the schools, then in the malls, stadiums, churches, workplace, or wherever people gather. All the police can do is react and contain the violence as other institutions, such as schools, churches, neighborhoods, doctors, lawmakers, and parents rediscover their responsibilities in an ordered society.

High Tech Crime

In terms of increased crime rates, the second area of concern is one that I would label high tech crime. The use of computers to engage in criminal activities has become a national concern. I believe that the situation will get far worse before it gets better. The foundation of my belief rests on the fact that much more commerce will be conducted over the Internet in the future. Since crime follows commerce, it is reasonable to expect those people with criminal intentions and a degree of high tech skill will move into this arena. As we have seen in the recent past, there are few web sites that are secure from a dedicated hacker. If this type of person can have success in trashing websites, planting computer viruses, or stealing nuclear secrets, imagine the success a criminal organization--or an individual with great skill and criminal intent--can do to a financial institution or corporation.

Who would have thought that sexual predators would use the Internet to identify and lure their victims; that pornography would be the most successful Internet business; or that gambling casinos would flourish on-line? Every form of fraud will flourish on the Internet. Who has the ability and resources to investigate such activities? Who has jurisdiction? Who has the resources to commit to policing the Internet? Law enforcement must immediately address these questions. Until such a time, however, Internet-related criminal activity, industrial espionage, and all forms of electronic crime will flourish. There is no question that high tech crime is a growth industry and that law enforcement organizations are currently ill prepared to cope with the problem.

Rehabilitation ?

The third area of concern about future crime problems in North America is one that we have struggled with for many years--without a satisfactory answer. Sending people to prison for criminal acts is one thing, releasing them back into society after they finish their sentence is an entirely different matter. Clearly, prisons fail to rehabilitate most criminals. In fact, more than 70% of released prisoners will be arrested again. Consider, if you will, that we released about 500,000 people from prison in 1996. If conviction rates remain constant, this number will increase from 700,000 in the year 2000, to about 900,000 in 2005. In 2010, over a million prisoners will be released. Applying simple math tells you that we are going to have to deal with well over 2 million criminally-minded people in the next ten years.

Many ex-convicts are more dangerous to society than they were before incarceration. Having given up on the rehabilitation of criminals in prisons our society presently endorses a prison philosophy that only emphasizes the punishment aspect of prison life. While I would not argue against this philosophy, it does yield an unintended backlash of producing even more violent criminals. With the demise of probation and parole, clearly law enforcement needs to do much work to monitor and control the released prisoners' potential criminal activities. This is going to be a very difficult problem to solve. I will make three suggestions for your consideration.

First, law enforcement executives should bring this problem to the attention of the general public--especially to the social institutions that have an interest in building a better, safer community by helping released prisoners rebuild a productive and crime free life. Second, law enforcement should research the use of high technology to assist them in controlling individuals with a propensity for violence. The successful use of ankle bracelets on people under home detention; the use of radio technology, which allows abused persons to notify police of impending danger; and the use of the Internet to publish convicted sex offenders' information are all examples of high technology's recent use. Additional efforts to modify high technology for law enforcement's use should be accelerated and encouraged.

Finally, the only way I know to successfully rehabilitate criminals is through religion. I don't care if the religion is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, or whatever. It works! The major problem with using religion to rehabilitate criminals is that most churches--and religious leaders--do not want to become involved. I wouldn't speculate on the reasons for organized religion's inaction in rehabilitating criminals. There is no question in my mind, however, that it is an area in which they could be of great service not only to the criminally-minded, but also to the community. I would suggest that law enforcement leaders make every effort to remind our friends in the religious community of the need for them to create new and innovative programs directed specifically toward the prison population and--more importantly--recently released prisoners.

Corruption

One of the problems that has plagued all law enforcement agencies for well over one hundred fifty years has been corruption. Corruption can take many forms and can manifest itself in countless ways. The usual form is greedy officers accepting bribes, taking kickbacks, or stealing evidence or goods from unsuspecting victims. Other forms of corruption by officers, which are equally--or even more--serious is the excessive use of force, obtaining goods or services through the intimidation of the badge, or lying, either on official reports or in the courtroom. Corrupt behavior can also be observed when officers fail to act when required to do so; are engaged in improper personal behavior on, or off, the job; or they fail to meet minimum performance standards. These behaviors when sustained and uncorrected inevitably lead to more egregious and criminal behavior.

There are three major points to be made about corruption in law enforcement. First, being a law enforcement officer is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. What exacerbates matters, however, is that officers are frequently confronted with situations that have unethical and illegal temptations. Sex, alcohol, money, special favors, as well as the psychological thrill of exerting authority, are temptations faced daily by officers. That a few officers succumb to one or more of these temptations is not surprising--that the overwhelming majority of officers are not corrupted is absolutely amazing!

Second, the elements of good character are learned from parents, schools, religion, and observation. An individual only develops and sustains good character through habit, or daily behavior, which when repeated on a regular basis, become the standards against which we make our decisions. When an individual has learned the elements of character and has engaged in honorable behavior for a number of years, we conclude that he/she has integrity. Having good character and becoming an individual with integrity is a lifelong process. To occasionally err, or stray from the path, is normal. After all, we are men and women and should not be confused with angels. However, when we recognize, or are advised, that our actions or decisions are wrong it becomes an opportunity--regardless of our age or seniority--to strengthen our character.

Corruption is also a matter of habit! Most individuals do not become corrupt overnight. Usually, in terms of a law enforcement officer, the road to the erosion of character begins by successfully breaking a few rules. The absence of tough minded supervision, or lack of internal controls, creates an atmosphere conducive to poor work habits and a disdain for the values and rules of the organization. Observing peers getting by with improper behavior and/or not fearing the consequences of improper behavior is also an underlying cause of corruption. These are a few of the elements which may lead an officer down the slippery slope of behavior that is illegal, immoral, or both. Once a police officer has adopted this pattern of behavior, it then becomes just a matter of time--or opportunity--before serious violations of department policy or law become routine.

Third, some law enforcement officers can be excessively influenced by the behavior of their peers, supervisory personnel, and the culture of the agency. It is particularly difficult for younger officers to avoid this influence. I am sure we all wanted to be John Wayne doing the work of the Lord at some time during our career. To impress other officers, or to demonstrate law enforcement authority to a hapless citizen, or to carry out the ill-conceived vision of a chief--or a mayor--an officer with less experience and a great deal of naivete will step beyond the bounds of legal authority on the grounds that the action is morally sanctioned. Afterwards, the officer finds him/herself out on a limb while watching the mayor, or police officials, deny any of their influence in the matter, while at the same time they are rapidly sawing on the limb. If we are to have aggressive policing practices it is absolutely imperative that we give adequate training and supervision to those officers who execute our orders. This training must emphasize the legal limits of police authority and the requirements of all police employees to be civil and courteous to every citizen, unless their actions warrant otherwise.

Over the next five years I expect the incidents of law enforcement corruption, including abuse of power, will increase. The principle reason for the increase will be a lack of training and supervision. Since the level of public trust in law enforcement is so high at the present time, there will be intense media interest in cases of this type. Unless these cases are properly handled by police authorities the public will seriously question the trust they have placed in law enforcement organizations.

Federal law enforcement agencies, which have been relatively immune from corruption over the years, will have a particularly difficult time. The reasons for the increase in corruption at the federal level are the same as were faced by other law enforcement agencies in the past. These reasons include; too rapid expansion of the workforce, reduction in hiring standards, harried recruit training and little or no in-service training, poor supervision, and an increase opportunities for temptation. For example, the FBI has drastically extended it's investigative jurisdiction over the past ten years. In the past four years over 1000 new Special Agents have been added to the workforce each year. However, very few of these agents have received any additional training beyond the recruit level. One finds a similar condition in the Border Patrol, DEA, Customs, and ATF. The pattern of expanded caseloads, extended supervisory responsibilities, a lack of training to re-enforce knowledge, skills, and values, and additional contact with corruptive influences always has produced disaster for other law enforcement agencies. Unless the federal agencies have hired angels, and they haven't, it would seem reasonable to conclude they will face difficult times in the years ahead.

Another major reason I am concerned about increased corruption in North American law enforcement is because of the rampant corruption among law enforcement officials in Mexico, Columbia, and other South American countries which are involved in either the growth of narcotics or the transportation of illicit drugs to market. While the level and type of corruption found in South America most likely would not occur in North America, it does pose a clear and present danger to law enforcement agencies on or near the Mexican border and also to those agencies which have customs or immigration responsibilities at our ports of entry. To date, narcotics traffic has not produced a significant amount of corruption in our law enforcement agencies. There have been a few cases. To the credit of the agencies involved, however, they identified the offending officers and punished them accordingly.

In the next five years I think we will see a modest increase in officers corrupted by some aspect of the narcotics traffic. It will increase for two reasons. First, our society has been desensitized to the horrors of narcotics abuse. Thanks to the continuing misguided efforts of the "legalize narcotics" groups or the "narcotics violators are a public health problem and don't belong in jail" groups, we have a sizable percentage of people who favor the decriminalization of some narcotics. It is doubtful that these groups will be successful in getting such legislation passed for hard drugs, but the movement has been successful in removing some of drug abuse's stigma. In some states this new "attitude" toward drug abuse has led to the decriminalization of marijuana use. Unfortunately, the message sent to officers involved in stemming the flow of narcotics makes them wonder, "Why am I laying my life on the line if many people just don't care?" If this attitude spreads in law enforcement we will have lost a critical line of defense in protecting officers from the corruptive influence of narcotics distribution. Losing our staunch anti-drug attitude in law enforcement will make it much easier for officers to rationalize any dereliction they may have in enforcing narcotic laws.

This leads to the second reason for an increase in narcotics-related corruption. Fools do not run drug cartels and networks! In the past two decades these people have successfully corrupted law enforcement agencies in two South American countries. There is no question they will modify their tactics in an attempt to corrupt North American law enforcement as well. Should these people spot a weakening in our resolve and attitude about illegal narcotics they will immediately exploit the weakness to their advantage. This is potentially a very serious problem that requires our constant scrutiny.

Final Thoughts

Police labor organizations are going to be increasingly active in local politics. This is going to cause multiple headaches for police managers. Trying to balance the need for effective management controls against the need for additional employee benefits has always been contentious. When a third party sticks their nose in the tent it can only mean that police managers need to do more homework to bolster any opposition they may have to the demands of labor organizations.

Our zero tolerance policies in the area of sexual harassment, discrimination, and other noxious workplace behaviors--while admirable in their intent--are by their inflexible language creating more problems for the organization than necessary. We have painted ourselves in a corner from which there is little escape from the petty complaints of disgruntled employees. Even if substantiated, these complaints do not always rise to the level that requires necessary administrative action. However, because we have used the word "zero" in our policy statements we are forced into an inquiry regardless of the complaint's nature. Without changing the intent of such policies, it might be a good idea for all concerned to drop the phrase "zero tolerance" from our official vocabulary.

Profiling, as a basis for traffic stops by police, has come under significant criticism recently from civil rights groups and politicians. These groups point to statistics which indicate than a higher than normal percentage of African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities are being stopped on the highways for no other reason than the color of their skin. This is one of those issues which has two underlying causes. First, profiling can be used as a rationalization for a traffic stop by an officer who is racist and only wishes to demonstrate power over a minority. Second, historically our minority communities have not trusted police officers nearly as much as the white majority. There are good reasons for this lack of trust and these reasons cause minorities to be suspicious of police motives. These factors, not profiling per se, are the underlying causes of minority complaints against police procedures. The criticism of profiling is merely a convenient, relatively understandable means by which to deliver a message to law enforcement. This displeasure by minorities will continue until police officers are held accountable for either their bigoted behavior or simple rudeness to civilians. We all know that the use of profiling for routine traffic stops is not official policy of any department, however, if the profile is valid, it is a useful commonsense tool to use in combating drug distribution. Nonetheless, we also know a few of our officers are habitually discourteous and prone to over exercise their power. If one seeks a solution to the problems brought to our attention by minority communities then it can be found in a combination of department policy and training. It is not a difficult problem to solve. In fact, if the Justice Department would take the money they are going to spend on trying to document the use of profiling in traffic stops and provide departments with video recorders for our patrol cars, I would suspect the problem would vanish rather quickly.

Well, as new fiscal years begin on July 1st and again on October 1st of this year we will get our chance to test how vulnerable we are to the Y2K problem. Of course, the big day is January 1, 2000. From my point of view, the most interesting thing about Y2K is how many authors have made a buck writing pieces about how bad things are going to be. As a result, we have people stocking up on groceries, matches, and cash in order to survive the impending chaos. I suspect these are the same writers who gave us the gasoline crisis of the 70's, global warming in the 80's, stray asteroids destroying our planet, second-hand smoke, and the spotted owl problems in the 90's. Therefore, it is my sense that Y2K will pass without any serious problem for law enforcement except--perhaps--how to pay for the overtime expended on a non event.

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401