Criticism and Transparency are Good for Police Departments
Community voices are an essential component for understanding and improving the public’s perception of police legitimacy and fairness. When certain special-interest groups label any critic as an opponent of the police, they intentionally obscure the distinction between undue attacks and legitimate criticism of practices or policies. And by resisting accountability in this way, they reduce police legitimacy in the eyes of those they serve, making community members less likely to report crimes or work with law enforcement to solve cases.
Police unions have accused all kinds of individuals and organizations of being cop-hating radicals—from NFL players to the ACLU of Illinois to John Legend.
Meanwhile, many of these individuals share Shaun King’s sentiment: “I’m not anti-police—I’m anti-police brutality and corruption”. Unions insist that reform measures will be potentially dangerous to police safety, but the real danger to police safety are those resisting reform. And objectors within police departments often fare the worst.
The tendency of law enforcement to resist any degree of transparency, what many call the “blue wall,” has created an environment of hostility towards “snitches” and people who cooperate with Internal Affairs (IA) investigations. Many officers now fear retaliation for reporting violations, and for good reason.
As the Atlantic reported in 2016, one Baltimore detective experienced this culture of retaliation first-hand after filing a misconduct complaint with the DOJ. Colleagues left pictures of cheese on his desk, failed to respond to his calls for backup, and placed a dead rat under his windshield wipers. These actions sent an undeniably clear message—“if you’re a rat, your career here is done.” With this level of retaliation, the fact that 72 percent of police officers report that poorly performing officers are not held accountable is all too predictable.
There is no question that policing is an immensely demanding and mentally taxing job, one that few outside the profession can fully understand. However, the good work conducted by officers is overshadowed in the eyes of their communities by the actions of dishonest officers protected by union activists.
In an environment that silences both external and internal challenges, what recourse do police departments have for learning from their mistakes? With no new insights, how can departments weed out bad officers and correct bad policies?
One model, the Army’s After Action Review (AAR) system, provides an example for building institutional knowledge and improving professionalism through structured review. Within these discussions, every participant shares their individual perspective while comparing the intended goals with the actual results. These perspectives address both the positive and negative aspects of interactions without overtly favoring either side. By lending contextual and institutional knowledge to all participants, AARs correct institutional mistakes while creating the opportunity for individual problem solving in the future.
Effective policing requires the trust of the communities it serves. Without this trust, community members are less willing to cooperate with officers and, in some cases, actively avoid interacting with the police out of fear. Public safety ultimately suffers from this, as perpetrators are less likely to be caught for committing crimes. Unions that actively resist reform, target good cops who want change and make officers’ jobs more difficult and dangerous cannot credibly call themselves “pro-cop.”
While far from perfect, the bills recently passed in California create progress for a state that’s struggling to increase police legitimacy and transparency.
Ultimately, community voices, police legitimacy and public safety are inextricably linked. If police departments want to build trust in communities, they cannot simply write off criticisms and alternative viewpoints.
All institutions require criticism to improve and grow—the police are no different.
