Police

Key Distinctive Features

From a more theoretical point of view, the police institution has two distinctive features. First, it is wholly instrumental: It is meant to perform a definite task, linked to crime and disorder, under civil supervision (i.e., the functional dimension of the police). Second, it is defined by its capacity to use physical force (i.e., the substantive dimension of the police). A crucial dimension of police relies therefore on its intimate relationship with the monopoly on physical force that Max Weber sees as the distinctive feature of the state. But this crucial dimension is at the same time oxymoronic, since (contrary to the military use of force), police force is expected to be legitimate (i.e., reasonable, proportionate, and based on consent). Robert Reiner (2000) asserts that, with respect to police action, the two terms consent and force are antagonists. The police can use force either in the context of a local breach of order (a contested arrest, an unlawful strike, or a riot) or in the context of a broader social or political breakdown resulting in great hostility against the regime in place. However, police legitimacy relies on consent from the public and/or the ruling regime.

On a more sociological level, the substantial affinity between force and the police has been questioned. Empirical evidence clearly shows that [Page 1877]the actual use of force is rather rare. Some police officers never use physical force throughout their career. On the other hand, trying to list and rationalize all the tasks ever performed by police officers is nearly impossible. Therefore, some theorists like John-Paul Brodeur (2007) are inclined to define the police as the only public organization aimed at “doing everything.” To do so, they use means that are illegal or unlawful if taken by ordinary citizens (from driving the wrong way on a one-way street to bugging phone devices).

...