Table of Contents |
There have been different policing styles throughout time in the U.S., which are shaped by the needs of the communities that police serve. According to Zhao and Hassell (2005), the most recognized frameworks of policing are:
The watchman policing style is an early form of policing in the U.S., associated with maintaining order rather than strict enforcement of laws. This style started in the early days of policing, when officers acted as guardians of public peace in early cities. Officers using this style are more likely to use their discretion when handling minor offenses, preferring to keep the peace rather than make arrests (Zhao et al., 2006). This approach lets police respond to what the community needs and the circumstances related to different incidents.
This approach is often seen in situations involving public disturbances, minor disputes, or nonviolent crimes, where the goal is to defuse tensions rather than strictly enforce the law (Zhao et al., 2006). Rather than relying on punishment, the watchman style allows officers to be mediators in disputes, aiming to maintain order. This style is useful when dealing with less serious crimes that do not threaten people’s safety. While this approach is not used as much in the past, it may still be used in smaller towns where police know the residents.
EXAMPLE
If a resident is found loitering, a police officer may informally deal with the situation rather than take formal action.A strength of the watchman style is that it promotes positive relationships between law enforcement and community members. Police using this style focus on the flexibility of a given situation rather than arresting people for minor infractions (Zhao et al., 2006). However, because the watchman approach uses so much discretion, this can lead to inconsistent enforcement of laws. Different officers handle situations differently, which can lead to unfair application of the law. Another drawback of this approach is that this approach is often considered too lenient, as it allows minor crimes to go unchecked, which has the potential to lead to larger problems in the future.
The legalistic policing style uses strict adherence to the law, emphasizing crime control and enforcement over community relationships. This style is often found in large urban areas with high crime rates, where officers must enforce laws uniformly regardless of circumstances, leaving little room for discretion (Zhao & Hassell, 2005). The goal is to deter crime by ensuring that all violations of the law, no matter how small, are dealt with through arrests or other legal actions.
The goal of the legalistic style is to reduce crime rates and enforce laws. It involves focusing on arresting people who break the law and solving criminal cases rather than resolving disputes or maintaining order (What Are the 7 Different Styles of Policing?, 2017). This policing style tends to be more impersonal and formal in its interactions with the public. Officers follow procedures and uphold the law, which often creates a sense of distance between the police and community members.
A strength of the legalistic style is that it offers a more uniform approach to law enforcement (Talarico & Swanson, 1978). By enforcing laws consistently, officers ensure that everyone is treated equally, which can help prevent perceptions of favoritism. Similarly, it offers a formalized approach to law enforcement, which leads to a stronger emphasis on procedure and accountability.
However, the impersonal nature of the legalistic style can create a divide between the police and the community. Residents may perceive the police as more concerned with making arrests than using discretion to understand the needs of the community. It also leads to the over-criminalization of minor offenses, which can disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
IN CONTEXTThe eroding trust of the legalistic style can be seen in communities of color and was apparent with New York City's "stop-and-frisk" policies of the late 1990s and early 2000s. During this period, NYPD frequently stopped people, disproportionately targeting young Black and Latino men and boys. The policy was intended to deter crime, but most people stopped were not involved in criminal activity. Thus, this approach eroded trust between the police and the community and contributed to the criminalization of minor infractions. In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the policy violated constitutional rights, highlighting how legalistic policing can harm marginalized groups (Goldstein, 2013).
The service policing style is a community-oriented approach, emphasizing collaboration between the police and the public to prevent crime and solve problems, sharing some similarities with the watchman style but actively involving the community in crime prevention (Chapel, 2022). This style is often found in suburban communities, where there is an emphasis on maintaining a high quality of life and ensuring public safety through partnerships rather than punitive measures.
With the service style, officers work closely with community members to identify issues that may contribute to crime, and they collaborate with local organizations to address these problems. There is regular communication with residents and community meetings to discuss these issues. This style is focused on prevention, encouraging officers to identify the root causes of crime in the community and to work with residents, businesses, and social service providers to address these issues.
IN CONTEXTPolice in Springfield, MA, focus on strengthening relationships between law enforcement and the community through the Counter Criminal Continuum (C3) policing model. Officers are assigned to specific sectors of the city, regularly meeting with residents to discuss local concerns and collaborate on solutions to crime. The C3 Policing effort targets gang violence reduction and community safety through partnerships with local organizations, increased officer visibility through walking and bike patrols, and community engagement activities like "coffee with cops" and youth programs. This approach fosters trust and proactive crime prevention (Counter Criminal Continuum (C3) Policing, 2021).
While the service approach can be effective, there are some drawbacks, like requiring significant resources in terms of time, personnel, and funding. Building relationships with the community, identifying problems, and developing solutions take a lot of work, and not all departments have the capacity to implement this approach effectively (Chapel, 2022). Furthermore, implementing a service approach can be challenging in departments that are used to more traditional models of policing.
Let’s summarize the keys differences between each policing style:
| Style | Focus | Characteristics | Relationship With Community |
|---|---|---|---|
| Watchman | Order Maintenance | Emphasizes maintaining order rather than strict law enforcement; tolerates minor infractions to focus on significant disturbances; common in small towns or areas with limited resources | Close relationship with community; informal conflict resolution |
| Legalistic | Strict Law Enforcement | Enforces laws uniformly with minimal discretion; issues citations and makes arrests rather than resolving disputes informally; common in large, urban settings with a bureaucratic approach | Detached, impartial relationship; relies on formal processes |
| Service | Community Needs and Assistance | Helps the community and provides services beyond crime control; emphasizes crime prevention and non-emergency services; common in suburban or middle-class areas | Strong community partnership; responsive to diverse needs |
Source: THIS TUTORIAL WAS AUTHORED BY SOPHIA LEARNING. PLEASE SEE OUR TERMS OF USE
REFERENCES
Chapel, A. (2022). Policechiefmagazine.org. www.policechiefmagazine.org/service-style-of-policing/
Counter Criminal Continuum (C3) Policing. (2021, June 24). Springfield Police Department. springfieldmapolice.com/counter-criminal-continuum-policing/
Goldstein, J. (2013, August 12). Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html
Talarico, S. M., & Swanson, C. R. (1978). Styles of policing: A preliminary mapping. Policy Studies Journal, 7(Special Issue), 398–406.
What Are the 7 Different Styles of Policing? (2017). Legal Beagle. legalbeagle.com/8213435-7-different-styles-policing.html#google_vignette/
Zhao, J. “Solomon”, & Hassell, K. D. (2005). Policing Styles and Organizational Priorities: Retesting Wilson’s Theory of Local Political Culture. Police Quarterly, 8(4), 411-430. doi.org/10.1177/1098611104269078
Zhao, J., He, N., & Lovrich, N. (2006). The effect of local political culture on policing behaviors in the 1990s: A retest of Wilson’s theory in more contemporary times. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(6), 569–578. doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.011
