The iron fist in the velvet glove? Testing the militarization/community policing paradox
| Author | Wendy M Koslicki,Dale Willits |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355718774581 |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
The iron fist in the velvet glove? Testing the
2018, Vol. 20(2) 143–154
ª The Author(s) 2018
militarization/community policing paradox
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461355718774581
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
Wendy M Koslicki
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Washington State University, USA
Dale Willits
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Washington State University, USA
Abstract
A number of police militarization scholars have explored the paradox of the simultaneous emergence of community
policing and militarism in the United States. Several researchers have suggested that police militarization and community
policing may be cohesive strategies of state control, with community policing being the “velvet glove” that wraps the “iron
fist” of militarization in palatable rhetoric. Alternatively, it has been suggested that these two policing strategies are
incoherent, having emerged as a result of the state’s disorganized attempts to maintain control in the face of significant
societal changes. To date, little research has examined the link between community policing and police militarization
specifically. This study uses community policing data from the 2013 LEMAS survey to examine variation in military
equipment acquisition data from the Department of Defense’s 1033 Program between the years 2012 and 2014.
Results show that departments engaging in certain community policing activities are significantly less likely to acquire
general military equipment, firearms, and military vehicles. These findings suggest that these policing strategies are not
necessarily coherent and potentially support the argument that community policing efforts can buffer militarization.
However, these results also highlight the need for more empirical research on existing theories of militarization, as
well as the causes and effects of police militarism and community policing activities.
Keywords
Police militarization, militarism, community policing, United States policing, 1033 Program
Submitted 25 Sep 2017, Revise received 10 Feb 2018, accepted 06 Mar 2018
Recent events in the United States have turned the attention
Although this is an understandable response to the per-
of the American public, media, and academia towards the
ceived growth of U.S. police militarism, a historical look at
topic of police militarization. Events such as the 2014 Fer-
the origins of community-oriented policing and of police
guson riots have returned police militarization—initially
militarization reveals that scholars largely agree that these
studied by Kraska, Kappeler, and colleagues in the 1990s
two trends emerged simultaneously in the United States
and then relatively overlooked by other scholars in the last
(Center for Research on Criminal Justice, 1977; DiMichele
two decades—back into public and academic focus in the
and Kraska, 2001; Kraska and Paulsen, 1997; Wood, 2015).
United States. As a reaction to increasing fears that U.S.
Although this simultaneous emergence of two seemingly
police are growing more militarized, the public and polit-
polarized trends may appear paradoxical, critical scholars
ical spheres have advocated for a revivification of commu-
nity policing, and other accountability practices and
technologies that can assist the police in better connecting
Corresponding author:
with, and being accountable to, the communities that they
Wendy M Koslicki, Ball State University, North Quad 278, Muncie, IN,
serve (D’Esposito, 2016; President’s Taskforce on 21st
USA.
Century Policing, 2015; Wood, 2015).
Email: wkoslicki@bsu.edu
144
International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(2)
have argued that police militarization and community-
following sections), the study of militarization as a histor-
oriented policing emerged as a coherent strategy by the
ical phenomenon has driven the discussion surrounding the
state to gain or maintain control in a changing society
paradox of militarization and community policing emer-
(Center for Research on Criminal Justice, 1977; DiMichele
ging concurrently in the United States.
and Kraska, 2001; Kraska and Paulsen, 1997).
Aside from one study (Kraska and Paulsen, 1997), this
argument remains largely untested and unquestioned in the
The iron fist in the velvet glove: explaining
current literature. The goal of this study, therefore, is to
the militarism/community policing
empirically examine whether there is a current relationship
paradox
between a department’s self-reported community policing
The first explanation for the concurrent emergence of mili-
activities and its trend toward militarism, as measured by
tarism and community policing in the United States was put
its military equipment acquisition behaviors.
forth by the Berkeley Center for Research on Criminal
Justice (1977), which argued that both strategies were
Police militarism defined
“integrated and complementary approaches to an overall
repressive strategy” (p. 180), emerging from the crises and
Before describing the common explanations for the mili-
heavy criticism of the police in the 1960s. The argument
tarism/community policing paradox, it is first necessary to
was furthered by Kraska and colleagues (DiMichele and
clarify the term “militarism”. While there is debate as to
Kraska, 2001; Kraska and Paulsen, 1997), although various
the definition and conceptualization of police militariza-
perspectives have been forwarded by a number of scholars
tion, many (see Bieler, 2016) adopt Kraska’s (2007) def-
since the declaration of the iron fist in the velvet glove was
inition of “militarism” as a set of beliefs that emphasize
published in 1977. These perspectives are discussed below.
the use of coercion to solve problems, as well as values
that favor military tactics, strategies, equipment, and cul-
tural themes. Militarization of the police is when the
The sovereign state in crisis
police adopt and implement the beliefs and values of mili-
DiMichele and Kraska (2001), in their discussion of the
tarism (Kraska, 2007).
militarism/community policing paradox, first introduce
Kraska (2007) has argued that U.S. policing has always
arguments put forth by Garland (1996, 1995) and Feeley
been “militarized” to some extent due to the institution’s
and Simon (1992) to argue why two seemingly incoherent
paramilitary roots and shared mandate to preserve security
policing strategies emerged at the same point in U.S. his-
through state-sanctioned force. However, the term
tory. These scholars point to significant social and cultural
“militarization” has also often been used by scholars to
changes in the Western world which have led (or are lead-
refer to relatively recent historical phenomenon in U.S.
ing) the government to shift its focus away from crime
policing where the type of militarism as defined above is
control and towards efficiency, risk management, and
becoming normalized (Andreas and Price, 2001; Campbell
community participation (DiMichele and Kraska, 2001;
and Campbell, 2010; Center for Research on Criminal
Feeley and Simon, 1992; Garland, 1995). According to
Justice, 1977; Haggerty and Ericson, 1999; Hall and Coyne,
Garland (1996), the state has become increasingly
2013; Hill and Beger, 2009; Koslicki, 2017). Kraska (1994)
ambivalent towards crime due to unremitting high crime
asserts that militarization as a historical phenomenon began
rates, which has resulted in several incoherent strategies: a
in the middle of the Cold War era, with others agreeing with
minimization of the government’s role in controlling
this timepoint (Andreas and Price, 2001; Center for Research
crime (and subsequent involvement of the community,
on Criminal Justice, 1977; Hill and Beger, 2009; Kraska and
leading to strategies such as community policing), and gov-
Cubellis, 1997; Kraska and Kappeler, 1997).
ernment entities wishing to re-establish state power and
Scholars point to this phenomenon of militarization as
sovereignty in order to maintain prominence. Community
rising due to increased technology and equipment transfers
policing, therefore, reflects the state’s ambivalence towards
from the military since the Cold War, the moral panic
the futile goal of controlling crime, whereas militarized poli-
surrounding the “War on Drugs”, and military training col-
cing reflects the state’s 11th-hour attempt to maintain sover-
laboration and federal funding fueled by the “War on
eignty in the face of complex societal changes (DiMichele
Drugs” (Andreas and Price, 2001; Bieler, 2016; Campbell
and Kraska, 2001).
and Campbell, 2010; Center for Research on Criminal
Justice, 1977; Hill and Beger, 2009; Kraska, 1994; Kraska
The critical perspective
and Cubellis, 1997; Kraska and Kappeler, 1997). Although
police militarization and its growth are difficult to opera-
The more widely published perspective, starting with the
tionalize and measure (as discussed at length in the
Center for Research on Criminal Justice (1977) takes a
Koslicki and Willits
145
critical approach by positing that the U.S. government took
The iron fist metaphor is intended to demonstrate that
a more purposeful role in militarizing the police in response
militarization and community policing are not contradic-
to the crises of the 1960s and the Cold War. The policing
tory strategies and that one may instead expect to see both
institution saw its shortcomings in response to these crises
arise within a...
To continue reading
Request your trial