New Perspectives in Policing V E R I TAS

HARVARD Kennedy School

Program in Criminal Justice

Policy and Management National Institute of Justice

Executive Session on Policing and 

Public Safety

This is one in a series of papers that will be 

published as a result of the Executive Session on 

Policing and Public Safety. 

Harvard’s Executive Sessions are a convening 

of individuals of independent standing who take 

joint responsibility for rethinking and improving 

society’s responses to an issue. Members 

are selected based on their experiences, their 

reputation for thoughtfulness and their potential 

for helping to disseminate the work of the Session. 

In the early 1980s, an Executive Session on Policing 

helped resolve many law enforcement issues of 

the day. It produced a number of papers and 

concepts that revolutionized policing. Thirty 

years later, law enforcement has changed and 

NIJ and the Harvard Kennedy School are again 

collaborating to help resolve law enforcement 

issues of the day. 

Learn more about the Executive Session on 

Policing and Public Safety at: 

www.NIJ.gov, keywords “Executive Session 

Policing”

www.hks.harvard.edu, keywords “Executive 

Session Policing”

APRIL 2015

From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to 

Democratic Ideals

Sue Rahr and Stephen K. Rice

“In Plato’s vision of a perfect society — in a republic 

that honors the core of democracy — the greatest 

amount of power is given to those called the 

Guardians. Only those with the most impeccable 

character are chosen to bear the responsibility of 

protecting the democracy.” 1

Introduction

Beginning in the 1960s, and more recently fueled 

by post 9-11 fear, American policing has slowly 

drifted away from Plato’s vision of guardians 

and Socrates’ view of guardian education as 

expressed in Plato’s Republic. This view of 

guardian education is humanistic. It takes shape 

through criminal justice education that is not 

only vocational but also stresses ethics, theory 

and the nature of virtue.2

 As a profession, we 

have veered away from Sir Robert Peel’s ideal, 

“the police are the people, and the people are the 

police,” toward a culture and mindset more like 

warriors at war with the people we are sworn to 

protect and serve.3 As a nation, we have tended 

to relinquish some of our sacred constitutional 

rights in favor of the perception of improved 

safety and security.4

 Constitutional rights are 

now viewed by some, including some police, 
Cite this paper as: Rahr, Sue and Stephen K. Rice. From Warriors to Guardians: 

Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals. New Perspectives 

in Policing Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice, 2015. NCJ 248654.

2 | New Perspectives in Policing

as an impediment to the public safety mission. 

Sadly, many have forgotten that protecting 

constitutional rights is the mission of police 

in a democracy. As New York University law 

professor Stephen Schulhofer argues in a review 

of the Constitution and the police: “The future of 

individual liberties in this country depends on 

reinvigorating the system of vigorous checks and 

balances built into our Bill of Rights.”5 Such a call 

for reinvigoration of the civil religion of the state 

has strong historic precedent. As Lincoln argued 

before the Springfield Young Men’s Lyceum in 

1838:

Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by 

every American mother to the lisping babe ... 

let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and 

in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling 

books, and in Almanacs; let it be preached 

from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, 

and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, 

let it become the political religion of the nation; 

and let the old and the young, the rich and the 

poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and 

tongues, and colors, and conditions, sacrifice 

unceasingly upon its altars.6

Recapturing the Fabric of Community

Despite two decades of aspiring to effective 

community policing, American law enforcement 

seems to have drifted off the course of building 

close community ties toward creating a safe 

distance from community members, in some 

cases substituting equipment and technology 

as the preferred means of gathering information 

about crime and addressing threats to public 

safety. In some communities, the friendly 

neighborhood beat cop — community guardian — 

has been replaced with the urban warrior, trained 

for battle and equipped with the accouterments 

and weaponry of modern warfare. Armed with 

sophisticated technology to mine data about 

crime trends, officers can lose sight of the value 

of building close community ties. 

Largely stripped of a nuanced understanding 

of how communities operate, crime tracking 

and crime prediction software minimizes the 

utility of hard-earned intelligence provided 

by line officers who know their beats. After all, 

one’s ability to glean meaning from algorithms 

is only as good as its sourcing: the accumulated 

body of knowledge of officers who have come 

to understand that there are few “straight lines” 

in policing — that (sometimes visceral) personto-person contact is typically not well-suited to 

statistical models.7

Most law enforcement leaders recognize that 

creating stronger human connections and 

community engagement will lead to improved 

public safety and more effective crime fighting. 

So how do we build the foundation of trust 

necessary to form a true partnership between the 

police and the people we serve? The research tells 

us that, despite three decades of falling crime 

rates — and improved training, technology 

and tactics — public trust in the police has not 
From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals | 3

improved. Instead, empirical assessments of 

trust and confidence in the police have remained 

generally unchanged in recent years.8

It turns out that people don’t care as much about 

crime rates as they do about how they are treated 

by the police.9

This phenomenon, known in academic circles 

as procedural justice, is regularly practiced and 

understood by effective and respected beat officers. 

The public knows it when they see it. But neither 

has likely heard of or used the term. Both beat 

officers and members of the public would describe 

procedural justice in action as being a good cop and 

doing the right thing.

More formally, Tom Tyler of Yale University explains 

that procedural justice focuses on perceived 

impartiality during interactions between police 

and the communities they serve, participation 

(“voice”) from the public during these interactions, 

fairness, and consistency of treatment. Fairness 

relates to the protection of human rights and goals 

to include equal treatment, nondiscrimination, and 

nonpartisanship.10

As Tyler and colleagues explain, procedural justice 

relates directly to legitimacy. “If legal authorities 

exercise their authority fairly, they build legitimacy 

and increase both willing deference to rules and 

the decisions of the police and the courts and the 

motivation to help with the task of maintaining 

social order in the community.”11 Put another way, 

procedural justice refers to the set of procedures by 

which agents of social control such as police meet, or 

fail to meet, standards of consistency, suppression 

of bias, accuracy of information, mechanisms of 

rectification, and ethicality of standards in their 

interactions with the public.12

Few police leaders would disagree that community 

trust would improve if police officers routinely 

employed procedural justice during t heir 

interactions with the public. Training in these 

principles is under way in a number of locations 

around the nation.13

Elaborating on the specific behaviors of a good 

cop doing the right thing, the theory of procedural 

justice was simplified and operationalized for 

training street officers through a model developed 

in 2011 by then King County, Wash., Sheriff Sue 

Rahr (and first author of this paper), using the 

acronym LEED — Listen and Explain with Equity 

and Dignity. Using the LEED model, officers are 

trained to take the time to listen to people; explain 

what is going to happen and how the process 

works; explain why that decision was made so the 

equity of the decision is transparent; and leave the 

participants with their dignity intact. 

Posit ive pol ice contact faci l itates publ ic 

confidence.14 People tell good cops what is going 

on in their neighborhoods and work with them to 

keep it safe. They view good cops as part of their 

community — one of the key distinguishing 

characteristics between cops with a guardian 

mindset and cops who operate with a warrior 

mindset. The guardian operates as part of 

the community, demonstrating empathy and 

employing procedural justice principles during 

interactions. The behavior of the warrior cop, on the 

other hand, leads to the perception of an occupying 
4 | New Perspectives in Policing

force, detached and separated from t he 

community, missing opportunities to build trust 

and confidence based on positive interactions. 

Police leaders dedicated to establishing practices 

in their agencies based on procedural justice 

principles must ensure that their organizational 

culture is not in conf lict with these same 

principles. As Stephen K. Rice and Karen Collins 

Rice explain, “Organizational systems, such as 

training, are nested within cultures that tend to 

go under-acknowledged but have tangible, and 

even visceral, impacts on the people working 

within them and their likelihood for embracing 

change.”15

The current culture in some American law 

enforcement agencies tends toward the warrior 

mentality. The seeds of that culture are planted 

during recruit training, when some recruits 

are trained in an academy environment that 

is modeled after military boot camp, a model 

designed to produce a warrior ready for battle 

and ready to follow orders and rules without 

question. As Radley Balko points out in his 

noted book, Rise of the Warrior Cop, the warrior 

mentalit y t hreatens Fourt h A mendment 

principles and casts the relationship between 

officers and citizens as a battle between “us” and 

“them.” Balko pulls no punches in describing the 

Department of Justice under Attorney Generals 

William French Smith and Edwin Meese during 

the Reagan era:

This would be a rough decade for the Symbolic 

Third Amendment [what Balko characterizes 

as strong American resistance to armies 

policing American streets]. Reagan’s drug 

warriors were about to take aim at posse 

comitatus, utterly dehumanize drug users, cast 

the drug fight as a biblical struggle between 

good and evil, and in the process turn the 

country’s drug cops into holy soldiers (p. 139).16

One of the many problems with the military boot 

camp model used in some academies is that it 

has little to do with the daily reality of policing. 

Whereas attention has been focused on the best 

span of control of supervisors to patrol officers,17

in reality, few officers working the street have 

consistent or even regular supervision. No one 

is giving them orders or making decisions for 

them, and police executives cannot generate 

enough rules to cover the variety of situations 

they will face on the street. Plus, even if we were 

to create “enough” rules for officers to memorize, 

the effort conflicts with what cognitive science 

tells us about limits on working memory: young 

adults generally can keep no more than three to 

five items in mind at a time.18 Given the realities of 

policing, critical thinking and decision-making, 

not memorization, should be a top goal of any 

training strategy. 

Another, more insidious problem in a militarystyle academy is the behavior modeled by the 

academy staff. Those without power (recruits) 

submit without question to the authority of those 

who have power (academy staff). Rule violations 

are addressed by verbal abuse or physical 

punishment in the form of pushups and extra 

laps. 
From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals | 5

Day-to-day power differentials may be reinforced 

more subtly. As Chief David Couper relays on his 

more than 20 years in the Madison (Wisc.) Police 

Department:

When I was introduced to the academy class 

that was already in training before I was 

appointed, the class stood at attention when I 

entered the room. In fact, I found that not only 

did they stand at attention when I entered, but 

that they did so for every supervisor who came 

into their class. 

A coercive, top-down leadership model had 

no place within a police department that was 

seeking highly educated people to come and 

join it. Some of the people we were trying to 

attract into a police career were currently in 

business, law, social work, or teaching. And 

most of them wouldn’t choose to remain in 

a police department that ran like an 18th 

century British warship (p. 150).19

Upon graduation, we send our newly trained 

recruits out into the community — they finally 

have power. Despite the way they were treated 

during their training, we expect them to treat 

the powerless people they encounter in the 

community with dignity and respect. One 

example of requiring the most from the least 

experienced has been in New York, where for 

years newly credentialed officers have been 

placed in “Operation Impact” assignments in 

many of the city’s most stressed neighborhoods.20

Why are we then surprised when some officers 

treat both suspects and citizens with the disdain 

and detachment they saw modeled by those in 

power at the academy?

According to the lead author’s experience 

working with police academies across the nation, 

much recruit training focuses on physical control 

tactics and weapons, with less attention given to 

communication and de-escalation skills. The 

reasoning for this approach is the sacred mantra 

of officer safety. We train relentlessly — as we 

should — in physical tactics for the high-risk, 

low-frequency attacks.21 Less instructional 

attention is focused on human behavioral 

science. Yet seasoned cops and statistics tell us 

that the officer’s intellect and social dexterity are 

often the most effective officer safety tools. For 

the sake of safety, voluntary compliance should 

be the primary goal in resolving conflict, with 

physical control reserved for those who present 

an immediate threat and cannot be managed any 

other way. 

Don’t misunderstand — we are not advocating a 

reduction in tactical training or equipment. 

Officer safety is critical, and we must maintain 

vigorous instruction on physical control tactics 

and weapons. Those skills will always be 

necessary for dealing with individuals who 

refuse to comply and present an immediate 

threat. But we need to significantly increase 

the level of training and importance placed on 

communication skills and human behavioral 

science if we truly care about the safety of our 

officers. As Lt. Jim Glennon of the popular Calibre 

Press tactical training programs explains in 
6 | New Perspectives in Policing

his engaging book, Arresting Communication, 

“Mastering the skill of communication provides 

an officer with deep insight into what the public 

wants, who they are, and what their intentions 

might be.”22

This leads to another great conundrum for leaders. 

A “physical control as last resort” maxim places 

immense importance on officer discretion, an 

orientation that can run counter to longstanding 

tendencies to regulate officer actions through 

operational control in the form of complex 

policies, rules and procedures.23 To reduce the 

need for officers to use physical force, it may be 

necessary to increase their discretion and to 

trust their critical thinking and decision-making 

skills.24

What stands in the way of adopting a training 

model and culture that supports the development 

of critically thinking leaders with enhanced skills 

in managing human behavior? Tradition. Some 

perceive moving away from the boot camp model 

as coddling recruits, making them weak and 

diminishing officer safety. Worse yet, it could 

be perceived as “soft on crime,” a political death 

knell to leaders since the 1960s. 

However, there appear to be no clearly logical 

or evidence-based reasons that we should train 

police officers as we do soldiers. Although police 

officers wear uniforms and carry weapons, the 

similarity ends there. Their missions and rules 

of engagement are completely different. The 

soldier’s primary mission is that of a warrior: to 

conquer. The rules of engagement are decided 

before the battle. The police officer’s mission 

is that of a guardian: to protect. The rules of 

engagement evolve as the incident unfolds. In 

war, collateral damage is expected and accepted. 

Not so in policing. On the battlefield, the soldier 

acts on orders from a superior. In the community, 

the officer is the leader, rarely operating with the 

luxury of direct supervision.

Why aren’t more police executives clamoring 

to train police officers to be more independent, 

critically thinking leaders? Because it is not 

consistent with the culture that exists in many 

American police agencies. The hierarchical, topdown control model remains the predominant 

structure both in the station and on the street. We 

do not encourage the rank and file to question 

authority. We cling to the belief that fear of 

punishment for rule violations leads to greater 

rule adherence and better police performance. 

Many still believe that an abundance of rules 

leads to fewer mistakes and greater accountability. 

Though well-intentioned, this style of leadership 

has the unintended but powerful consequence 

of conveying a distrust of officers by their leaders. 

It is no wonder that one of the hallmarks of law 

enforcement culture is the reciprocated distrust 

and disdain of police leadership by rank-and-file 

officers.

As David Bayley explains, “Authority is very much 

top-down, but perhaps for good reason. Policing 

needs to be accountable to law and morality, 

so supervisors double-down on discipline so 

as to minimize mistakes, they hope. Not only 

do officers not trust the community, but senior 
From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals | 7

officers don’t trust their officers. They don’t know 

how to minimize mistakes except by minimizing 

discretion.”25

This culture is mirrored on the street when 

police actions focus primarily on aggressive 

enforcement (zero tolerance) in the belief that 

fear of arrest is the best way to prevent criminal 

behavior. Just as it does internally, this overfocus 

on enforcement conveys the same level of 

distrust between those in power (police) and 

those under their authority (the public). Just as 

we measure internal organizational success 

by employee adherence to rules, we measure 

external operational success through crime rates 

and arrest statistics. We do both to the detriment 

of building trust and legitimacy, because they 

ignore what the research tells us and what the 

public and the rank and file tell us. Both the 

public and rank-and-file officers want to be 

treated fairly by those in authority. We should 

not be surprised that we end up with poor morale 

among our officers echoed by the lack of trust 

from the community. 

Changing the Police Culture From 

Warriors to Guardians

Perhaps it is time to reassess the predominant 

mindset of our profession, to change our culture 

— or rather recommit our culture — to democratic 

ideals. Perhaps it is time to revisit the wisdom of 

Plato and Sir Robert Peel and strive to become the 

trusted guardians of democracy. This will not be 

easy. In the first author’s 35 years of experience, 

there are two things cops hate: the way things 

are, and change. When we add the emotional 

implications of changing culture, we must be 

prepared for strong resistance. That resistance 

will be intensified because we are challenging 

the very core of the warrior identity that many 

have embraced in the popular culture of policing. 

Furthermore, we are challenging the strict 

paramilitary organizational structure that is a 

hallmark of many police agencies. The challenge 

seems insurmountable.

There is good news. Change is afoot, and 

instructive examples are emerging around the 

country. One such transformation in training is 

taking place at the Washington State Criminal 

Justice Training Commission (WSCJTC). This 

transformation began in 2012, when Sue Rahr 

took over as the Executive Director. She brought 

with her the hard lessons from the street, the 

courts, and the political arena after serving 33 

years with the King County Sheriff’s Office, the 

last seven as the elected Sheriff. The following 

summary chronicles the transformation that 

occurred from 2012 to 2014 and continues today. 

This example is instructive for law enforcement 

leaders who are ready to transform their 

agencies from a culture of warriors to a culture 

of guardians. 

Transforming Police Training in 

Washington State

The WSCJTC sets training standards, issues peace 

officer certifications, and conducts all mandated 

basic and advanced training for police, local 

corrections and a wide variety of other criminal 
8 | New Perspectives in Policing

justice system professionals. The Commission 

oversees the training of approximately 10,000 

police officers and deputies from across the state, 

serving in 39 counties, 243 cities and a variety of 

tribal and state agencies. Each year, more than 

600 police recruits receive 720 hours of basic 

training in programs that last 5 months. Figure 1 

shows the courses and hours of training.

Before 2012, basic training was conducted 

according to a paramilitary “boot camp” model 

that employed a deterrence strategy to maintain 

discipline and control. Referred to as a “tune-up,” 

starting the first day, training officers yelled at 

and berated new recruits for failing to complete 

drills designed to be impossible. Recruits were 

required to brace (salute) and remain silent 

whenever they encountered an academy staff 

member. Minor rule violations resulted in 

physical punishment in the form of extra pushups 

and running laps. 

Despite t he of fer i ng of behav iora l a nd 

communications instruction in the classroom, 

the majority of the five-month training regimen 

emphasized physical skills training accompanied 

by a steady stream of fear-provoking stories about 

officers killed in the line of duty. Few classes 

Figure 1. Basic Law Enforcement Academy Curriculum

Applied Training

 (Mock Scenes)

Study/Review/Exams

Miscellaneous 

260

HOURS

250

HOURS

74

HOURS

64

HOURS

40

HOURS

32

HOURS

Fundamental Knowledge:

Criminal Investigations 53

Criminal Law 48

Criminal Procedures 37

Patrol Procedures 63

Traffic Investigations 55

Ethics 4

Communication & 

Behavior Management:

Blue Courage 14

Emotional Intelligence/

 Tactical Thinking 6

Crisis Intervention Training 8

Crisis Communication 12

Physical Skills:

Defensive Tactics 124

Firearms 86

Emergency Vehicle Operations 40

720

TOTAL 

CURRICULUM

HOURS

*Elements of the Communications and Behavioral Management training have been extensively integrated into the Fundamental Knowledge and Physical Skills 

blocks of training and must be demonstrated in Mock Scenes.
From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals | 9

effectively integrated communication skills and 

physical tactics. Physical control was emphasized 

over de-escalation. Conquering was emphasized 

over serving.

Most of the posters and visual aids in the 

classrooms carried themes related to deadly 

threats on the lives of officers. Skulls and 

crossbones were featured prominently. The 

lobby was decorated with display cases featuring 

the “tools of the trade.” Legacy mementos from 

previous classes reflected a consistent theme 

of warriors, battles and survival. Noticeably 

absent from both the physical environment 

and curriculum was any reference to service 

and the noble and historical role of policing in 

a democracy. 

W hat changed? The first change was the 

elimination of the protocol requiring recruits 

to brace. The new protocol requires recruits to 

initiate a conversation any time they come in 

contact with a staff member, taking care to make 

eye contact, show respect and address the person 

as “sir” or “ma’am.” 

The artificially imposed fear and humiliation from 

the “tune-up” day has been replaced by coaching. 

The standards for physical performance remain 

high, and training officers still push the recruits 

far beyond their physical limits. But, rather than 

screaming and berating the recruits, the training 

officers vigorously coach and encourage them to 

keep pushing. Instead of trying to instill a sense 

of fear, training officers strive to build a sense 

of camaraderie and pride for the success of the 

whole team. 

The displays containing the “tools of the trade” 

in the main lobby were replaced by a large 

mural depicting the United States Constitution, 

framed by the following words in large relief: 

“In These Halls ... Training the Guardians of 

Democracy,” as shown in Figure 2. This theme 

has been replicated in several locations across 

the campus. Posters depicting the pride and 

honor of policing have been interspersed with 

the more traditional posters about officer safety. 

Speeches delivered at graduation ceremonies 

emphasize the nobility and higher purpose of 

policing and the distinction between the roles 

of warriors and guardians. During the first week, 

each recruit is presented a pocket-sized book 

containing the Constitution and the Declaration 

of Independence. A vigorous discussion about 

civil rights and the important role of policing in 

our democracy follows the presentation. 

Behavioral and social science programs have 

been integrated into the 720-hour curriculum. 

Although intertwined, each of these programs 

has a distinct purpose that supports the others 

and contributes to better officer safety and 

improved public trust — two areas that, in the 

past, have been incorrectly viewed as mutually 

exclusive. They are:

• Blue Courage. Developed through a Bureau

of Justice Assistance grant, this motivational

program instills pride and supports

values about the nobility of policing and
10 | New Perspectives in Policing

the importance of maintaining physical, 

emotional and spiritual health. It has also 

been implemented at the Arizona Law 

Enforcement Academy and is currently being 

introduced to the rank and file at the New York 

Police Department and many other agencies 

across the nation.

• Justice Based Policing. This program,

developed by the King County Sheriff’s Office 

with funding from the Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, teaches the

principles of procedural justice using the

LEED model (Listen and Explain with Equity

and Dignity).

• Crisis Intervention Training. This program

teaches recruits to recognize behavioral

cues associated with mental illness and

traumatic brain injury and helps recruits

develop strategies to de-escalate conflict

and gain compliance. More than half of the

“mock scenario” training and testing activities 

have been modified to include options and

requirements for using crisis intervention

techniques.

• Tactical Social Interaction. Academy

personnel worked in partnership with Defense 

Figure 2. A 6’ x 9’ Mural of the United States Constitution
From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals | 11

Advanced Research Program Administration 

(DARPA) researchers to create a program that 

teaches students specific, measurable actions 

that increase rapport between strangers and 

lead to positive social interaction. Although 

the program was developed to train Marine 

recruits how to conduct peacekeeping 

missions in foreign villages, it has shown great 

utility for police officers and is currently being 

adapted for both basic and in-service training.

• “The Respect Effect.” Lessons from the book 

by Paul Meshanko about the neuroscience 

behind the acts of respect and disrespect 

to either motivate or antagonize26 were 

integrated into the basic academy curriculum. 

At the same time, the entire WSCJTC staff 

completed the program as a demonstration of 

the effectiveness of this organizational strategy 

to begin cultural transformation. 

What has not changed? Moving away from the 

“boot camp” model has not led to softening of 

the training. Recruits still must demonstrate a 

high level of proficiency in defensive tactics and 

firearms. In fact, additional firearms training 

time and tools have been added, and the 

defensive tactics program has been expanded to 

include more realistic and challenging scenarios. 

Discipline standards have not been relaxed. 

The use of formal titles and deference to senior 

officers and staff are still required. The changes 

made at the academy do not resemble previous 

experiments with “non-stress” academies, nor 

has the environment been changed to mirror 

a community college. The military protocols 

that have been retained (marching and formal 

f lag ceremonies) are focused on patriotism 

and honor rather than power and submission. 

Behavioral strategies and decision-making have 

been integrated into physical control scenarios 

to better reflect the reality of policing.

A five-year longitudinal study of the effectiveness 

of the new training is now under way, having 

been launched in the fall of 2014. Researchers 

will follow cohorts of recruits for five years, 

conducting interviews and administering 

surveys at various intervals. The study is designed 

to determine if the guardian philosophy, the 

Blue Courage program and the Tactical Social 

Interaction program positively influence officers’ 

attitudes about their job and the public. It will 

also measure whether or not officers trained 

under those programs are more likely to use crisis 

intervention strategies and de-escalation skills 

in the field than officers trained under the old 

warrior philosophy.

Conclusion

As this paper was being written, media images of 

officers atop armored personnel carriers, dressed 

in military fatigues and armed with rifles, have 

proven to be a powerful catalyst for vigorous 

discussion about the militarization of police 

in this country.27 This debate should generate 

introspection by police leaders about cultures 

created within police agencies. This introspection 

should lead to a robust conversation with 

community members to assess whether police 
12 | New Perspectives in Policing

cultures reflect the values and expectations of 

the communities they serve. 

Author Note

Sue Rahr is Executive Director of the Washington 

State Criminal Justice Training Commission 

and former King County Sheriff, Seattle, Wash. 

Stephen K. Rice, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of 

Criminal Justice at Seattle University. 

The authors would like to thank Dr. David 

Bayley, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the 

University at Albany, and Christine Cole, Vice 

President and Executive Director of the Crime 

and Justice Institute at Community Resources for 

Justice, for their thoughtful comments on earlier 

versions of this paper.

Endnotes

1. Nila, Michael and Stephen R. Covey, The 

Nobility of Policing, West Valley City, Utah: 

Franklin Covey Publishing, 2008: 7.

2. See Holland, Kenneth, “Socrates: The First 

Criminal Justice Educator,” Criminal Justice 

Review, 5(2) (1980): 1-4. 

3. As a kind of “policing originalism,” Sir Robert 

Peel has received newfound attention in his 

impact on New York Police Commissioner 

William Bratton. See Goldstein, Joseph and J. 

David Goodman, “A London Guide for 1 Police 

Plaza,” New York Times, April 15, 2014, http://

w w w.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/nyregion/alondon-guide-for-1-police-plaza.html.

4. Within the context of homeland security and 

the risk of profiling, see, e.g., Rice, Stephen K. 

and William Parkin, “New Avenues for Profiling 

Research: The Question of Muslim Americans,” 

in Race, Ethnicity and Policing, ed. S.K. Rice and 

M.D. White, New York: New York University Press, 

2010. 

5. Schulhofer, Stephen J., “The Constitution 

and the Police: Individual Rights and Law 

Enforcement,” Washington University Law 

Quarterly 66 (1) (1988): 11. 

6. Lincoln, Abraham, “Address Before the 

Springfield Young Men’s Lyceum,” in The Political 

Thought of Abraham Lincoln, ed. R.N. Current, 

Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967. 

7. For a useful conversation about the challenges 

and advantages of predictive policing software, 

see Vlahos, James, “The Department of PreCrime,” Scientific American, January 2012.

8. Tyler, T.R., “Trust and Legitimacy in the USA 

and Europe,” European Journal of Criminology 8 

(2011): 254-266.

9. See Meares, Tracey L., Rightful Policing, New 

Perspectives in Policing Bulletin, Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice, 2015. NCJ 248411; Meares 

Tracey L., Tom R. Tyler and Jacob Gardener, 

“Lawful or Fair? How Cops and Laypeople View 

Good Policing,” Social Science Research Network, 

2012, http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2116645 

(last visited Nov. 13, 2014); Paternoster, Raymond, 

Ronet Bachman, Robert Brame, and Lawrence W. 
From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals | 13

Sherman, “Do Fair Procedures Matter? The Effect 

of Procedural Justice on Spouse Assault,” Law 

and Society Review 31 (1997): 163-197; Tyler, Tom 

R. and Yuen J. Huo, Trust in the Law: Encouraging 

Public Cooperation With the Police and Courts,

New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002; Tyler, 

Tom R., “Enhancing Police Legitimacy,” Annals 

of the American Academy of Political & Social 

Science 593 (2004): 84-99; Tyler, Tom R. and 

Jeffrey Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation: 

Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime 

in Their Communities?” Ohio State Journal of 

Criminal Law 6 (2008): 231; Tyler, Tom R. and 

Cheryl Wakslak, “Profiling and Police Legitimacy: 

Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and 

Acceptance of Police Authority,” Criminology 42 

(2004): 253.

10. See Hickman, Matthew J., “Democratic 

Policing: How Would We Know It If We Saw It?” 

in Race, Ethnicity and Policing: New and Essential 

Readings, ed. S. K. Rice and M.D. White, New York: 

New York University Press, 2010. 

11. See Tyler, Tom, Jonathan Jackson, and Ben 

Bradford, “Psychology of Procedural Justice and 

Cooperation,” in Encyclopedia of Criminology 

and Criminal Justice, ed. G. Bruinsma and D. 

Weisburd, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2013. 

12. Leventhal, F.S., J. Karuza, Jr., and W.R. 

Fry, “Beyond Fairness: A Theory of Allocation 

Preferences,” in Justice and Social Interaction,

ed. G. Mikula, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1980: 

167-218.

13. One such effort is the Chicago Police 

Department’s goal of training its 11,000 officers 

in procedural justice principles. See Fox, Aubrey, 

“Work in Progress: Can Police Officers Be Trained 

in Procedural Justice Principles?” Augustus: The 

Latest Research and Commentary About Criminal 

Justice Reform, Apr. 16, 2013. 

14. Bradford, Ben, Jonathan Jackson, and 

Elizabeth A. Stanko, “Contact and Confidence: 

Revisiting the Impact of Public Encounters With 

the Police,” Policing and Society: An International 

Journal of Research and Policy 19(1) (2009): 20-46. 

15. Rice, Stephen K. and Karen Collins Rice, 

“How to Change the Culture of the Seattle Police 

Department,” Seattle Times (June 20, 2014), http://

seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023892606_

stephenkarencollinsriceopedpolicereform23xml.

html. 

16. Balko, Radley, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The 

Militarization of America’s Police Forces, New 

York: Public Affairs Books, 2013. 

17. See Johnson, O’Ryan, “Police Supervisors 

Push Marty Walsh to Add 40 to Staff,” Boston 

Herald, May 24, 2014, http://bostonherald.

com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/05/

police_supervisors_push_marty_walsh_to_

add_40_to_staff (accessed May 25, 2014).

18. See Cowan, Nelson. “The Magical Mystery 

Four: How Is Working Memory Capacity Limited, 

and Why?” Current Directions in Psychological 

Science 19 (2010): 51-57.
14 | New Perspectives in Policing

19. Couper, D.C., Arrested Development: A Veteran 

Police Chief Sounds Off About Protest, Racism, 

Corruption and the Seven Steps Necessary to 

Improve Our Nation’s Police, Indianapolis, 

Indiana: Dog Ear Publishing, 2011.

20. The tide may be shifting, however. As New York 

Police Commissioner William Bratton explained 

recently, “I want to change the dynamic of kids 

coming out of the academy and immediately 

being put into Operation Impact assignments, 

where they really have an almost single-minded 

focus and really don’t get a full flavor of the 

job.” Goodman, J. David, “Bratton Says Rookies’ 

Role in Anticrime Effort Will End.” The New 

York Times, Feb. 1, 2004, http://www.nytimes.

com/2014/02/01/nyregion/bratton-tells-chiefshell-stop-sending-rookies-to-high-crime-areas.

html (accessed May 25, 2014).

21. Methodologically, this “high risk, low 

frequency” operational environment has been 

assessed by way of “danger ratios” and similar 

tools (see, e.g., Garner, Joel and Elizabeth 

Clemmer, Danger to Police in Domestic 

Disturbances, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1986. 

Garner and Clemmer’s formula uses the ratio 

of violent incidents divided by the total police 

activity in the area of focus). 

22. Glennon, Jim, Arresting Communication: 

Essential Interaction Skills for Law Enforcement,

Villa Park, Illinois: LifeLine Training, 2010: 35.

23. See Alpert, Geoffrey P. and William C. Smith, 

“Developing Police Policy: An Evaluation of the 

Control Principle,” American Journal of Police 13 

(1994): 1.

24. For an excellent review of cutting-edge 

research on decision-making and problemsolving, see Brockman, John (ed.), Thinking: The 

New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, 

and Prediction, New York: Harper Collins, 2013. 

Of particular relevance to policing is Thinking’s 

discussion of the smart heuristics that expert 

performers use to make good decisions. As 

Brockman explains, “In order to make good 

decisions in an uncertain world, one sometimes 

has to ignore information. The art is knowing 

what one doesn’t have to know” (p. 40). 

25. Bayley, David, personal correspondence, June 

15, 2014.

26. Meshanko, Paul, The Respect Effect: Using the 

Science of Neuroleadership to Inspire a More Loyal 

and Productive Workplace, Columbus, Ohio: 

McGraw-Hill Education, 2013.

27. M i l ita r i zat ion of t he pol ice w it h i n 

t he contex t of Ferg u son ha s received 

explicit attention. See, e.g., http://w w w.

msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/

police-militarization-adds-to-fergusonchaos-319148099539.
Findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

8660 Cherry Lane

Laurel, MD 20707-4651

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ/GPO

PERMIT NO. G – 26

NCJ 248654

Members of the Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety

Chief Edward Flynn, Milwaukee 

Police Department 

Colonel Rick Fuentes, Superintendent, New Jersey State Police 

District Attorney George Gascón, San 

Francisco District Attorney’s Office 

Mr. Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of 

National Drug Control Policy 

Professor John H. Laub, Distinguished 

University Professor, Department of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice, College of 

Behavioral and Social Sciences, University 

of Maryland, and former Director of the 

National Institute of Justice

Chief Susan Manheimer, San Mateo 

Police Department 

Superintendent Garry McCarthy, Chicago 

Police Department

Professor Tracey Meares, Walton Hale 

Hamilton Professor of Law, Yale Law School 

Dr. Bernard K. Melekian, Director, Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(retired), United States Department of 

Justice

Ms. Sue Rahr, Director, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission

Commissioner Charles Ramsey,

Philadelphia Police Department

Professor Greg Ridgeway, Associate 

Professor of Criminology, University of 

Pennsylvania, and former Acting Director, 

National Institute of Justice

Professor David Sklansky, Yosef 

Osheawich Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law 

Mr. Sean Smoot, Director and Chief Legal Counsel, Police Benevolent and Protective 

Association of Illinois 

Professor Malcolm Sparrow, Professor 

of Practice of Public Management, John F. 

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University 

Mr. Darrel Stephens, Executive Director, 

Major Cities Chiefs Association 

Mr. Christopher Stone, President, Open Society Foundations

Mr. Richard Van Houten, President, Fort 

Worth Police Officers Association

Lieutenant Paul M. Weber, Los Angeles 

Police Department

Professor David Weisburd, Walter E. Meyer Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, 

Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University; 

and Distinguished Professor, Department 

of Criminology, Law and Society, George 

Mason University

Dr. Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, 

Police Executive Research Forum

Commissioner Anthony Batts, Baltimore 

Police Department

Professor David Bayley, Distinguished Professor (Emeritus), School of Criminal 

Justice, State University of New York at 

Albany 

Professor Anthony Braga, Senior Research 

Fellow, Program in Criminal Justice Policy 

and Management, John F. Kennedy School 

of Government, Harvard University; and 

Don M. Gottfredson Professor of EvidenceBased Criminology, School of Criminal 

Justice, Rutgers University

Chief Jane Castor, Tampa Police Department

Ms. Christine Cole (Facilitator), Executive Director, Program in Criminal Justice Policy 

and Management, John F. Kennedy School 

of Government, Harvard University 

Commissioner Edward Davis, Boston 

Police Department (retired)

Chief Michael Davis, Director, Public Safety 

Division, Northeastern University

Mr. Ronald Davis, Director, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 

United States Department of Justice

Ms. Madeline deLone, Executive Director, 

The Innocence Project

Dr. Richard Dudley, Clinical and Forensic 

Psychiatrist

Learn more about the Executive Session at: 

www.NIJ.gov, keywords “Executive Session Policing”

www.hks.harvard.edu, keywords “Executive Session Policing”

*NCJ~248654*