New Perspectives in Policing

National Institute of Justice

 

FEBRUARY 2015
 

Rightful Policing 

Tracey L. Meares, with Peter Neyroud 

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 

societ y’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. Thir ty 

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: 

ww w.NIJ.gov, key words “Executive Session 

Policing” 

w ww.hks.har vard.edu, keywords “Executive 

Session Policing” 

Introduction 

During the summer of 2009, the nation and the 

world t rai ned t heir at tent ion on Ca mbr idge, 

Massachusetts, a small northeastern cit y of about 

100,000 people abut t ing Boston a nd home to 

Harvard University. That summer, a Cambridge 

p ol ic e of f ic er a r re s t e d r enow ne d Ha r v a rd 

Universit y A f r ica n A mer ica n St ud ies schola r 

Henr y Louis Gates, Jr., who was attempt ing to 

enter his home following a long trip abroad. The 

media were flooded w it h stories and accounts 

of “racial profiling,” the nature of t he problem 

and the necessity for a national response. Even 

President Obama famously commented on the 

incident.1 

To u n der s t a nd t h e c o n t r o v er s y fo l lo w i n g 

Professor Gates’s a r rest, it is usef u l to have a 

fact ua l contex t: Sergea nt James Crowley, t he 

officer who arrested Professor Gates, radioed that 

he would go to the Gates residence after receiving 

a dispatch at 12:46 p.m. on July 16, 2009, that a 

possible breaking and entering was in progress. 

Crowley arrived to find Gates in his home, and 

from there the stories diverge. Crowley’s version 

of t he event s is t hat Gates w a s yel l i ng a nd 
Cite this paper as: Meares, Tracey L., with Peter Neyroud. Rightful Policing.

New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2015. NCJ 248411

 

2 | New Perspec tives in Policing 

behav ing in a “tumultuous” manner as Crowley 

at tempted to ascer ta i n enoug h facts to ensure 

t hat a crime was not occurring. Gates’s v iew, on 

the ot her hand, is t hat Crowley disrespected him 

by failing to respond when Gates asked Crowley 

for his name and badge number. Gates was also 

upset t hat Crowle y suspec ted h i m — a sl ig ht, 

elderly ma n w it h a cane — to be a burg lar. It is 

important to emphasize t hat Sergeant Crowley 

arrived at Gates’s home in response to a 911 call as 

opposed to an exercise of his ow n discretion. This 

point is critical because t he t y pical conception 

of rac ia l prof i l i ng foc uses on it s lega l it y, a nd 

t he legalit y of police act ion is primarily framed 

around placing constraints on when police decide 

to engage people as opposed to how police engage 

people. Even though his experience fit somewhat 

uneasily into the t y pical legal framework of racial 

prof i l i ng , P rofessor Gates ha s descr ibed h is 

experience in exactly those terms. 

How, t hen, are we to understand t he disjuncture 

bet ween Sergeant Crowley’s insistence — as well 

as t he conclusion of many — that he conducted 

himself law f ully and Professor Gates’s insistence 

t h at he w a s u n fa i rl y t reate d a nd, t herefore, 

racia l ly profi led? 

To find an answer, it is necessar y to see how t wo 

dominant ways of evaluat ing police leave litt le 

room for considering how ordinar y people tend 

to a ssess t hei r t reat ment by state aut hor it ies. 

E x per t s, whet her t he y a re pol ic e of f icia ls or 

scholars of policing, tend to assess police action 

eit her w it h respec t to it s law f u l ness or w it h 

respec t to it s ef fec t iveness at reduc i ng c r i me 

and i ncreasing public sa fet y. Police fidelit y to 

law, especially constitutional law, has long been 

used as a criterion to distinguish good from bad 

policing. In add it ion to t he Fou r t h, Fif t h, a nd 

Sixt h Amendments, ot her bodies of law — such 

as police agency administrative regulations, civ il 

lawsu its, or t he ver y law t hat aut hor izes police 

to act in t he first place, substantive criminal law 

— prov ide standards by which legal authorit ies 

measu re and assess whet her or not policing is 

carried out properly.2 

Effect iveness at cr ime fig ht ing has become t he 

other primar y police evaluation met ric. Promoted 

initially by scholars, this yardstick is newer t han 

law fulness, because for decades many, including 

police, believed t hat law enforcement had litt le 

impact on crime rates.3 Dav id Bayley, in his 1994 

book, Police for the Future, summed up t his v iew 

nicely: 

The police do not prevent crime. That is 

one of t he best kept secrets of moder n 

life. Experts k now it. The police k now it, 

but t he public does not k now it. Yet, the 

police pretend t hat t hey are societ y’s best 

defense aga inst cr i me a nd cont inua l ly 

a r g u e t h a t i f t h e y a r e g i v e n m o r e 

resources, especially personnel, they w ill 

be able to protect communities against 

crime. This is my th.4 

T h is is no longer t r ue. Pol ic e exec ut ives a re 

expected — and expect t hemselves — to reduce 
 

 

Rightful Policing | 3 

c r i me r at e s i n t he i r j u r i s d i c t ion s . Pol ic i n g 

schola rs devote t hemselves to f i nd i ng causa l 

connect ions bet ween va rious pol ice pract ices 

a nd c r i me st at ist ics, t y pic a l l y by rely i ng on a 

t heoret ica l model t hat assumes of fenders are 

r at ion a l ac tor s w ho a re p er suaded t o desi st 

f rom cr imina l behav ior when t he prospect of 

for ma l pu nish ment out weig hs t he benef its of 

that behav ior. In arresting Professor Gates that 

day, Sergeant Crowley pursued t hese t wo aims 

of policing simultaneously. He was an assiduous 

crime fighter, and he acted in a way t hat was legal. 

Does t hat mean that Sergeant Crowley’s conduct 

was unambig uously right f ul? 

No, it does not. It does not because t here is a t hird 

way, in addition to law f ulness and effectiveness, 

t o e v a l u a t e p o l ic i n g — “r i g h t f u l p ol ic i n g .” 

R ig ht f u l pol icing at tempts to accou nt for what 

people say that they care about when they assess 

i nd iv idua l of f icer behav ior a s wel l a s agenc y 

conduct generally. It differs from law ful policing 

a nd ef fe c t i ve p ol ic i ng i n at lea st t w o w a y s. 

First, r ig ht f ul policing does not depend on t he 

law fulness of police conduct. Rather, it depends 

primarily on t he procedural justice or fairness of 

t hat conduct. Second, r ig ht f u l policing does not 

depend on an assessment of police as ever more 

effect ive crime fighters (although it turns out that 

rightful policing of ten leads to more compliance 

w ith t he law and t herefore lower crime rates). This 

t hird way may well help us move toward police 

governance that is substantively, as opposed to 

rhetorically, democrat ic. Finally, rightful policing 

is bet ter for cops on t he st reet. Its precepts not 

on ly encou rage t he people w hom pol ice dea l 

w ith on a daily basis to comply w ith the law and 

police directives, they also encourage behav iors 

in encounters that tend to keep police safe. 

Two Views: More Law? Or Less Crime? 

Before this paper delves into greater detail about 

“right ful policing,” it is useful to understand what 

right f u l pol ici ng is not. R ig ht f u l policing is not 

confined simply to constitutional policing, nor is 

it subsumed ent irely by policing aimed at crime 

reduction. Rather, it is about how to achieve both 

by promot ing fairness and engendering trust in 

police among t he public. 

Th is discussion began w it h a w idely publicized 

ex a mple of what ma ny, i nclud i ng t he per son 

who was arrested, Professor Henr y Louis Gates, 

bel ie ved to be r acia l prof i l i ng by pol ice. New 

York Cit y, li ke Cambr idge, has been embroi led 

in its ow n racial profi ling cont roversy for more 

t han a decade. In New York, t he cont roversy is 

centered not on one hig h-profi le incident, but, 

rat her, on hu nd reds of t housa nds of stops a nd 

f r isk s of na meless, pr i ma r i ly you ng , A f r ica n 

American men. The criticism of “stop and frisk” 

leveled aga i n st t he pol ice i n Ne w York is not 

limited to t hat cit y or t his countr y. Philadelphia, 

for e x a mple, h a s b e en i nv ol ve d i n a si m i l a r 

cont roversy, and London police have come under 

fi re for implement ing what critics believe to be a 

too-aggressive “stop and search” strateg y. In each 

of these cities, there have been vocal complaints 

about what critics claim is t he overbroad exercise 

of s t ate p ow er i n t he for m of s e a rc he s a nd 

sei zu res. These cr it icisms usua l ly a re asser ted 

in lega l ter ms and f ra med a rou nd precept s of 

constitutional law. The critics’ preferred remedies 
4 | New Perspectives in Policing 

in turn are usually described using t he same set of 

tools — t he architecture of law and rights. 

T h i n k i ng about pol ice law f u l ness i n ter ms of a 

tradeoff bet ween the risk of arbit rar y or oppressive 

enforcement a nd a n i nd iv idua l’s r ig ht to pr ivac y 

a nd autonomy is a dom i na nt approach i n t he 

literat ure.5 Those who measure good policing w it h 

reference to its law f ulness do not usually focus on 

police effectiveness at reducing crime. Rat her, t he 

law fulness met ric almost always casts police power 

as a necessar y ev il as opposed to a welcome utilit y 

or a potentially crit ical mechanism for empowering 

communities to pursue t heir ow n democratica lly 

chosen goals and projects. According to t he “more 

law fulness” view, police adherence to strict dictates 

that constrain their discretion generally results in 

less policing and more libert y for indiv iduals. The 

h ig her level of cr i me t hat m ig ht resu lt f rom less 

pol ic i ng is si mply a pr ice c it i z ens pay for more 

freedom in societ y.6 

Police executives who are committed to lowering 

cr i me rates i n t hei r com mu n it ies do not ag ree 

t hat less polici ng is an idea l t hey shou ld seek to 

ach ieve. In pu rsuit of accountabi lit y, one of t he 

fou r c or ner s tone s of t he ne w profes s iona l i sm 

advocated by Stone a nd Trav i s7 — t he pr i ma r y 

c omponent s of w h ich i nclude reduc i ng cr i me 

a nd m a k i n g c om mu n it i e s s a f er, c o n t r o l l i n g 

cost s, a nd conduc t i ng t hem selves w it h respec t 

toward t he public whom they ser ve8 — police have 

become much more concerned w it h effect iveness, 

consider i ng com m it ment to cr i me reduc t ion a 

prime aspect of accountabilit y.9 The quest ion is no 

longer whether or not police can make a difference. 

Pol ic e exec ut ives i n stead ask , “How much of a 

difference i n cr i me rates ca n police ma ke?” The 

new literature on t he relationship bet ween crime 

rates and policing is voluminous. Criminological 

research over the last couple of decades has show n 

t hat deploy i ng pol ic e forces i n geog raph ic a l ly 

fo c u s e d w a y s — “ hot s p ot p ol ic i n g ” — c a n 

significantly reduce crime w ithout displacing it to 

ot her a reas.10 Ot her scholars have demonst rated 

t hat st rategies such as problem-oriented policing 

and communit y policing can be usef ul to address 

crime and/or t he fear of crime.11 The advances in 

statistical approaches are strik ing and useful, but a 

weak ness of the scholarship on police effectiveness 

is t hat law fulness is largely irrelevant to it. 

Those who promote success at cr ime fight ing as 

the best way to assess police effect iveness too of ten 

fa i l to u nderst a nd t hat pol ice fa i lu re to ad here 

to law is a proper lens t h roug h wh ich to v ie w 

public perception of overbroad policing — in the 

form of too-preva lent stop a nd f r isk, w idespread 

publ ic su r vei l la nce, or ot her ever yday pol ic ies 

a nd pract ices. Com ments by bot h for mer Mayor 

Bloomberg and former Police Commissioner Ray 

Kelly in reaction to the federal court order strik ing 

dow n New York Cit y’s prominent stop, question and 

frisk practice illustrate this attitude on the part of 

pol ice agenc ies a nd publ ic of f icia ls. Fol low i ng 

Dist r ict Judge Sh i ra Sheind lin’s order decla ring 

t he pract ice in v iolat ion of bot h t he Fou r t h and 

Fou r teent h A mend ment s as it operated at t he 

t ime t he order was issued, Bloomberg a nd Kel ly 

cla i med t hat t he judge had imper iled t he cit y ’s 

safet y by limiting liberal use of the practice.12 On 

t he other hand, t hose who promote law f ulness as 

t he best met r ic to assess good polici ng too of ten 
Rightful Policing | 5 

ignore t he fact that crime and predation among 

i nd iv idua ls resu lt i n sig n ificant ly less f reedom 

for residents of hig h-cr ime commu nit ies, even 

though private actors impose that constraint on 

f reedom. Residents of high-crime com munit ies 

of ten see hig her levels of polici ng as a way to 

achieve freedom as opposed to its const raint.13 

Rightful policing is attentive to both law fulness 

a nd ef fec t iveness, a nd it capt u res i mpor t a nt 

d i mensions t hat neit her one of t he prev a lent 

modes of evaluation does. The notion of rightful 

policing also includes a critique of a “get-tough” 

approach to law enforcement, which uses as its 

principa l touchstone inst r u menta l t heor ies of 

deterrence. Deterrence, w ithout t he balance of a 

focus on legitimacy, can be effective, but its effects 

often are shor t-lived and expensive to implement. 

Moreover, c om m it ment to some met hods of 

achieving deterrence, such as stop and frisk, can 

predictably back fi re in communities that need 

crime reduction most. There is also strong reason 

to believe that many heav y deterrence strategies 

a re not pa r t ic u la rly ef fec t ive i n encou rag i ng 

offenders to desist from crime. 

Rightful Policing: It’s About Legitimacy 

Pol ice ac t ions such as stops a nd f r isks can be 

costly even when they are law f ul, constitutional 

and short. People do not automatically approve 

of a stop just because an officer is legally entitled 

to ma ke one. T h i s rea l it y c r y st a l l i z es a ba sic 

problem w it h foc u si ng on law f u l ness as t he 

s i ng le y a rd s t ic k for r ig ht f u l p ol ic e c onduc t . 

Indeed, research I have conducted w ith Tom Tyler 

suggests t hat the public does not recognize law ful 

police conduct when t hey see it.14 

If people do not focus on the law fulness of police 

conduct, what do t hey care about? A lt houg h it 

seems counterintuitive, decades of research show 

that people t y pically care much more about how 

law enforcement agents t reat t hem t ha n about 

t he outcome of t he contact. Even when people 

receive a negative outcome in an encounter, such 

as a speedi ng t icket, t hey feel bet ter about t hat 

incident t ha n about a n i ncident in which t hey 

do not receive a t icket but a re t reated poorly.15 

I n add it ion to bei ng t reated w it h d ig n it y a nd 

respect, research demonstrates that people look 

for behav ioral signals that allow t hem to assess 

w het her a pol ice of f ic er’s decision to stop or 

arrest t hem was made fairly — that is, accurately 

and w it hout bias. These t wo factors — qua l it y 

of t reat ment a nd i nd icat ion s of h ig h-qua l it y 

decision-mak ing — matter much more to people 

than t he outcome of the encounter. 

Two add it iona l fac tors mat ter as wel l. People 

report higher levels of satisfaction in encounters 

w it h aut hor it ies i f t he y feel t hat t he y have a n 

opportunit y to explain t heir situation and t heir 

perspective on it — i.e., to tell t heir stor y.16 Fina lly, 

in t heir interactions w it h police, people want to 

believe t hat aut horities are acting out of a sense 

of benevolence toward them. They want to believe 

that the aut horities’ mot ives are sincere and wellintentioned and t hat the aut horities are t r y ing to 

respond to people’s concerns.17 A ll four of these 

factors — qualit y of treatment, decision-mak ing 

fa i r ness, voic e a nd ex pec tat ion of benevolent 
6 | New Perspectives in Policing 

t reat ment — ma ke up what psycholog ists ca l l 

“procedural justice.” 

Procedura l just ice matters a g reat dea l in civ i l 

societ y. One impor ta nt consequence of people’s 

percept ions of procedural fairness according to 

t hese ter ms is t hat t hey lead to popu lar beliefs 

of leg it i mac y. W hen soc ia l ps ycholog ist s use 

t he ter m “leg it i mac y,” t he y a re refer r i ng to a 

“proper t y t hat a r u le or a n aut hor it y has when 

others feel obligated to voluntarily defer to that 

r ule or aut hor it y. A leg it imate aut horit y is one t hat 

is regarded by people as entitled to have its rules 

and decisions accepted and followed by ot hers.”18 

Th is concept ion of leg it imac y is not normat ive. 

W hen ps ycholog i st s d i s c u ss leg it i mac y, t he y 

a re not ex plor ing in some philosophica l sense 

whet her people ought to defer to legal aut horities; 

rather, t hey are seek ing to determine whether, in 

fact, people do defer. Their approach is positive 

a nd empi r ic a l. T hu s, when resea rchers have 

soug ht to determ i ne why people obey t he law, 

t he leg it i mac y-based ex pla nat ion is d ist i nc t 

f rom a n ex pla nat ion g rou nded i n fea r i ng t he 

consequences of fa il ing to do so a nd f rom one 

grounded in moralit y. W hen people voluntarily 

comply w ith rules and laws because they believe 

aut hor it ies h av e t he r ig ht to d ic t ate pr op er 

behav ior, their compliance is leg itimacy-based. 

R ightf ul policing leverages t hese ideas. 

A robust body of socia l science ev idence f rom 

around t he world shows t hat people are likelier 

to obey t he law when t hey believe that authorities 

have the right to tell t hem what to do.19 Research 

shows that people are mot ivated more to comply 

w it h t he law by t he bel ief t hat t he y a re bei ng 

t reated w it h d ig n it y a nd fair ness t ha n by fear 

of pu n i sh ment. I n fac t, bei ng t reated fa i rly is 

a more i mpor ta nt determ i na nt of compl ia nce 

t han formal deterrence.20 W hen police generate 

good feelings in t heir ever yday contacts, people 

a re mot ivated to help t hem f ight cr i me. A ll of 

t his encourages desistance from offending, lawabiding and assistance to the police, contributing 

to lower crime rates. 

A lthough police are conceived and constituted by
 

and t hrough law, focusing on t he law fulness of
 

police conduct can obscure one’s abilit y to ident if y
 

and remedy policing behavior that t he public may
 

wel l v iew as problemat ic. It is i mpor ta nt to see
 

t hat alt hough procedural justice can be related to
 

t he law fulness or legalit y of police conduct, t hese
 

t wo va lences do not proceed in lock step. One
 

way of t hink ing how t hese valences relate to one
 

anot her is to imagine points on a compass (see
 

figure). If we array law f ulness from west to east,
 

w it h law f ulness to the east and unlaw fulness to
 

t he west, t hen we wou ld ex pect police to be as
 

fa r east as possible. Now, imag i ne procedu ra l
 

just ice or legitimacy as r unning nort h and south
 

on the compass. W hen police are respectf ul and
 

procedurally just, they are headed nort h. W hen 

t he y a re not, t hat behav ior i s c ategor i zed as
 

“running south.” Putting t he t wo parts toget her,
 

one sees that t he best place for law enforcement
 

to be is in the northeast.21 That is where one fi nds
 

rightful policing. 

Th is image, however, also reveals the sout heast 

and t he northwest. A primar y problem w it h street 

pol icing i n urba n cit ies such as New York a nd 

Chicago, and i n many commu nit ies across t he 
Rightful Policing | 7 

justice in encounters can change public Figure: Rightful Policing as the Convergence of Lawfulness and 

Legitimacy 

W

perceptions of policing agencies, leading 

N to lack of t r ust, i l l-w i l l and u lt imately 

Legitimacy less law-abiding.22 Considering both the 

law fulness and the legitimacy of police 

Rightful conduct allows both the police officer and Policing

the citizen stopped to be right in a way 

that is not possible when one operates in Lawfulness

E the single dimension of lawfulness. The 

possibility of both sides being right can 

lead to fruit ful conversat ion about the 

rightfulness of policing. 

Putting Legitimacy to Work 

S T his arg u ment ra ises t he quest ion for 

Source: Tracey L. Meares, The Good Cop: Knowing the Difference between Lawful or 

Effective Policing and Rightful Policing — And Why It Matters, 54 Wm. & mary L. rev. 1865, police of how t hey can put t hese ideas 

1879 (2012). 

into practice. A focus on the procedural 

globe, is that too often such policing comprises 

behavior I would locate in the southeast: police 

conduc t t hat is ver y l i kely law f u l, but t hat 

citizens in many encounters perceive as deeply 

illegitimate, using t he term as defined here. In 

t he f ig ure, for example, if one ask s a law yer 

what const it utes racia l prof i l ing, t hat person 

t y pic a l l y w i l l a ns wer, “It is pol ice behav ior 

solely or perhaps partially motivated by race”; 

however, t he rev iew earlier in this essay of t he 

events connected to Professor Gates’s arrest in 

the summer of 2009 should make clear that many 

who believe themselves to have been profiled 

care little about the legal determinants of their 

encounters with police. 

T he bot tom l i ne i s c lea r : r eg a rd le s s of t he 

lawfulness of police behavior, lack of procedural 

justice of encounters can help policing 

a ge nc i e s id e nt i f y b e h a v ior, t a c t i c s 

and strateg ies that many members of minorit y 

communities find problematic and that lead to 

disaffection, even t hough t hey may be law f ul 

and, considered in isolat ion, appear effective. 

Second, a focus on t he psycholog ica l aspects 

of leg it i mac y i n i nd iv idua l enc ou nters may 

have i mpor ta nt cr i me cont rol benef its when 

incor porated into tact ics a nd st rateg ies. Two 

case studies illustrate this. The first is a strateg y 

for v iolence reduction in Chicago, Illinois, which 

has been running since 2002.23 The second is an 

experiment conducted in Queensland, Australia, 

on road traffic enforcement.24 I have deliberately 

chosen t wo ver y dif ferent examples to show 

that legitimacy-based approaches have a wide 

application across different aspects of the police 
 

8 | New Perspectives in Policing 

mission. These t wo initiatives, however, are not 

unique. Lorraine Mazerolle and her colleag ues 

recent ly completed a meta-analysis of legitimac y 

policing inter vent ions and concluded that “police 

can achieve positive changes in citizen attitudes 

to pol ice t hroug h adopt i ng procedu ra l just ice 

d ia log ue as a component pa r t of a ny t y pe of 

police inter vention.”25 

W hen t he Chicago init iat ive sta r ted, t he cit y ’s 

hom ic ide r at e hovere d ne a r 2 2 p er 10 0,0 0 0. 

Crime is often concentrated by geography, and 

i n C h ic a go t he nei g hb or hood s on t he c it y ’s 

west a nd sout h sides drove t he cit y ’s hom icide 

rate. The h ig hest crime a rea on t he west had a 

hom ic ide rate of 72 per 10 0,0 0 0. Usi ng f u nd s 

prov ided by a billion-dollar nationw ide federal 

initiative to combat g un crime called Project Safe 

Neighborhoods (PSN),26 United States Attorney 

Patrick Fitzgerald proposed a strateg y modeled 

a f t e r P r oje c t E x i l e i n R ic h mo n d , V i r g i n i a , 

target ing ex-offenders i n t he h ig h-cr i me a reas 

w it h federa l pena lt ies for g u n possession a nd 

ot her g u n of fenses. Fi zgera ld bel ieved, f rom 

crime analysis, t hat ex-offenders were primarily 

responsible for the gun v iolence in Chicago. This 

approach is entirely consistent w it h the t y pical 

“get-tough” deterrence-based t hin k ing around 

crime control — a crackdow n on potent ially highharm offenders.27 

In dev ising t he pa r t icu la rs of t he st rateg y, t he 

program’s architects suggested to t he task force 

that t he proposed strateg y should be w rapped in 

t he t heor y of leg it imac y. The resu lta nt st rateg y 

wou ld st i l l t a r get t he g roup t he U.S. At tor ney 

t houg ht most v ulnerable to g u n offendi ng, but 

the communication strateg y to t his group would 

emphasize aspects that research indicated clearly 

most people care about when determining that 

law enforcement is fair. A lthough offenders would 

be broug ht in a nd a ler ted to t he consequences 

that would follow should they pick up a g un, they 

would also receive information about ser v ices to 

help t hem turn away from a life of crime. 

Modeled after Operation Ceasefi re in Boston,28 

hour-long, roundtable-st yle meetings were the 

center piece of t he new st rateg y. Each of t hese 

for ums gathered no more than 20 offenders, who 

sat around a table w ith representat ives from state 

and local law enforcement and the communit y. 

Instead of simply confronting the offenders w it h 

t he pu n it ive con sequences of t hei r behav ior, 

emph a si s w a s pl ac e d on t he qu a l it y of t he 

interact ion — less a t ribunal and more a dialogue 

bet ween citizens — and the potential rewards of 

law-abiding, which is consistent w ith attempting 

to achieve legit imac y-based compliance. 

Legit imacy-based law enforcement focuses more 

on persuasion t ha n punish ment. To persuade, 

aut hor it ies mu st create t he nec essa r y soc ia l 

capital t hat engenders trust bet ween governors 

and t he governed. Simply emphasizing rewards 

and punishments does not automatically lead to 

t r ust, because such a n approach assumes t hat 

a l l i ndiv idua ls ca re about is t he bot tom line — 

an assumption t hat is contrar y to t he t heor y of 

procedural justice and much empirical ev idence. 

The notion that compliance is t y pically created 

on l y by t h reat s of c o er c ion bac k e d up w it h 
 

 

 

Rightful Policing | 9 

punishment is f undamenta l ly inconsistent w it h 

trust, for such a stance assumes t hat indiv iduals 

cannot be counted on to defer to and comply w ith 

the law voluntarily. 

St at i s t ic a l a s s e s s ment s of t he i mp ac t of t he 

Ch icago prog ra m a re st r i k i ng. Papach r istos, 

Me a r e s a n d Fa g a n a s s e s s e d t h e i m p a c t o f 

Chicago’s forums on neighborhood-level crime 

rates and g un violence, compared w ith the impact 

of t hree other components of PSN — increased 

federal prosecut ions for conv icted felons carr ying 

or using g uns, the imposition of longer sentences 

associated w it h federa l prosecut ions, a nd t he 

removal of guns from t he street.29 Their analysis 

demon s t r at e s t hat a lt hou g h a l l t e s t ed P SN 

initiatives were associated w it h a decrease in t he 

homicide rate, the forums had t he largest effect. 

Compa r i ng t he relat ive ef fec t s of t he for u ms 

and federal g un prosecutions shows that a unit 

increase in forum participation (or approx imately 

45 new offenders) among t hose eligible is roughly 

8.5 t imes more powerful than a unit increase in 

federal prosecutions in reducing homicide rates.30 

Furt her research suggests that the forums make 

a difference at an individual level as well. Those 

who at tended were sig n ifica nt ly more li kely to 

stay out of prison t han those who did not, all other 

things being equal.31 

I n t he second e x a mple, I sh i f t f rom t ac k l i ng 

s er iou s i n ner-c it y v iolenc e t o t he re duc t ion 

of ro ad deat h s b y t r a f f ic en forc ement . T he 

Q ueen s l a nd C om mu n it y E nga gement Tr ia l 

(QCET)32 used a randomized field trial to test the 

appl icat ion of leg it i mac y i n how Queensla nd 

police enforced t he drink driv ing laws. 

P o l ic e of f ic er s ac r o s s A u s t r a l i a ad m i n i s t er 

t hou s a n d s of b r e a t h t e s t s t o d r i v er s u n der 

leg islat ion t hat empowers t hem to ca r r y out 

r a ndo m r o ad s id e b r e at h-t e s t i n g . T he t e s t s 

tend to be ad min istered at test sites ident i fied 

a s hot sp ot s of d r i n k d r i v i n g a nd c ol l i s ion s 

causing serious injur y. These police actions are 

justifiable as bot h legal and evidence-based. The 

researchers at t he Australian Research Council 

Cent re of Excellence in Policing and Securit y, in 

partnership w it h Queensland police, set out to 

see whet her t hey could significant ly enhance the 

impact of t he test ing reg ime so that t he testing 

not only checked for alcohol on the driver’s breath 

but also increased public confidence in t he police 

and support for the enforcement of drink driv ing 

legislat ion. 

I n Q C E T, t he t e s t i n g s i t e s w e r e r a ndom l y 

allocated either to a cont rol — t he standard police 

procedure — or to a “legitimacy treatment.” In t he 

cont rol, drivers were stopped, given a short legal 

wa rn ing, a nd required to prov ide a breat h test. 

The legal minimum process and time were taken 

to prov ide a test. In contrast, in t he “legitimacy 

treatment,” t he drivers were taken through a fivestage procedure t hat emphasized five dimensions 

of procedu ra l just ice: dec i sion neut ra l it y, to 

ex plain that t hose drivers stopped had not been 

singled out, but that t he test was being prov ided 

to dr ivers at ra ndom; t r ust wor t hy mot ives, to 

prov ide context about the reasons for the test site 

and t he testing campaign; cit izen participation, 

includ ing cri me prevent ion adv ice a nd deta i ls 

of loca l Cr i mestopper s nu mber s; red ress a nd 

feedback, or an opportunit y to raise any issues of 
 

10 | New Perspectives in Policing 

concern; and dignity and respect, which included 

thanks to the drivers for their cooperation. 

There was a ver y small difference in the t ime 

taken for the two approaches (around a minute 

ex t ra for t he leg it i mac y t reat ment), yet t he 

dr ivers’ percept ions of t he process were ver y 

different. Drivers who experienced the legitimacy 

t reat ment “re por te d s ig n i f ic a nt l y s t ronger 

generalized perceptions of police fairness, police 

respect, [a nd] hig her sat isfact ion” w it h how 

police do their job.33 The caveat on these interim 

findings is t hat researchers could not see from 

this trial a w ider increase in t he respondents’ 

genera l con f idence i n t he pol ice or a w ider 

tendency toward compliance with the law. Given 

that the encounter, even in the longer, legitimacy 

treatment, only lasted 1 minute and 37 seconds, 

this may not be surprising. However, the study 

sug gest s t hat t he deploy ment of leg it i mac y 

approaches in day-to-day police interactions with 

citizens can have a significant and measurable 

benefit over an approach t hat simply relies on 

the letter of the law. It also makes the point that 

such approaches a re not on ly releva nt i n t he 

critically difficult relationships between police 

and minorit y communities but should also be 

considered as an important part of wider police 

operations. 

Conclusions and Implications for 

Policing 

If legitimacy is as impor tant as I have argued, 

t hen it ra ises t he quest ions of how t he police 

should incorporate this approach and what the 

obstacles are to implementation. I think we can 

make progress on answering these questions by 

considering three issues: 

Training. M u c h p o l i c e t r a i n i n g , d e s p i t e 

improvements over t he last 20 yea rs, retains 

a st rong bias i n favor of lea r n i ng t he r u les, 

particularly legislat ion, procedure (especially 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e) a n d 

depar tmental policies. Such training does not 

apply only at the initial recruitment phase. In the 

United Kingdom, for example, the key gateway for 

promotion for all first-line managers is to pass a 

set of examinations in the law and procedures 

for cr ime, roads policing , genera l dut ies, and 

ev idence and procedure.34 This k ind of reliance 

on law and procedure as t he qualificat ion for 

recr uits a nd ma nagers is t y pica l across most 

jurisdictions. As Janet Chan and her colleagues 

show, procedural/legal training is now frequently 

suppor ted by prog ra ms to add ress behav iors 

a nd prac t ic a l sk i l ls but a l most ne ver by a n 

educational approach that provides officers with 

the means and material to understand the social 

science ev idence for what works in policing or 

how approaches such as legitimac y make t heir 

practice more effective.35 Indeed, Chan and her 

colleag ues demonstrate how t he legal valence 

of f ront line cu lt ure can u nder mi ne even t he 

attempts to inject some “social contex t.” Peter 

Ne y r oud ha s re c om mende d a muc h more 

fundamental shift in the framework of training 

for recr u its, specia l ists a nd managers so t hat 

police training in the United Kingdom would be 

governed by a new professional body and start 

with a prequalification that emphasizes learning 

about ev idence-based practice.36 Without such a 
Right ful Policing | 11 

radical shift, it seems likely, from studies like that 

of Chan and colleagues, that police training will 

continue to underpin a legalistic way of think ing 

about problems and t heir solutions. There are 

promising signs of change, however. Chicago 

Pol ic e Super i ntendent Ga r r y Mc Ca r t hy ha s 

instituted a day-long training in police legitimacy 

and racial reconciliation for the entire force. To 

date, more than 8,000 officers and leaders have 

been trained.37 Early assessments of the program 

are extremely positive.38 In the United Kingdom, 

extensive practical training on procedural justice 

in pa r t icu la r sit uat ions is a lso becomi ng t he 

norm.39 

Strategies and tactics. Too often, compelled by 

the ever-present demand to bring crime statistics 

down (especially in big cities), police executives 

foc us on st rateg ies a nd tac t ics desig ned to 

reduce violence in too-cramped ways. If this is 

r ig ht, t hen pol ice execut ives shou ld consider 

problem-solving in more holistic ways that w ill 

y ield approaches t hat a re desig ned not on ly 

to quel l v iolence but a lso to en ha nce sa fet y 

by changing t he att itudes and disposit ions of 

those alienated from them in ways that sustain 

voluntar y compliance. I have in mind here hot 

spot policing that is not only deterrence-based but 

also legitimacy-based. Braga, Welsh and Schnell 

recently found, in a rev iew of broken w indows 

pol ici ng st rateg ies, a dist inct brea k bet ween 

t he ef fec t iveness of ag g ressive, deter renc efocused broken w indows approaches, such as 

stop and frisk in New York Cit y, and other more 

leg it i mac y-based approaches. Only t he lat ter 

group produced large and statistically significant 

impacts on crime.40 Moreover, commitment to 

legit imacy can also help police increase safet y 

and, by implication, quell violence at the incident 

level by encouraging officers to engage in tactics 

that defuse violent incidents.41 

Democracy and communit y participation. I agree 

w it h Loader when he notes t hat, “T he pol ice, 

in shor t, are bot h m i nders a nd reminders of 

community — a producer of significant messages 

about t he k i nd of place t hat com mu nit y is or 

aspires to be.”42 Policing makes communit y. It is 

no accident that an iconic symbol of England itself 

is the Bobby’s hat.43 In the United States, policing’s 

symbolic valence is not so positive. At least one 

scholar has located t he genesis of A mer ica n 

policing not in the benevolent image of a kindly 

communit y protector but in t he more sinister 

for m of t he slave pat rol ler.44 T he procedu ra l 

justice literature rev iewed above makes clear 

the ways in which this dark histor y can and likely 

does undermine trust in police in the modern era. 

And yet this same literature provides a roadmap 

for a more posit ive relat ionsh ip t hat not only 

benefits those who need help from the police but 

also potentially supports t heir par t icipation in 

democratically led government. It is important 

for people to feel t hat if t hey call on t he police 

(a nd ot her lega l actors a nd inst it ut ions), not 

only w ill t heir securit y be protected, but t hey 

w i l l a lso be t reated w it h respect, t hei r r ig hts 

w ill be recognized, and they w ill be subject to 

fair decision-making. The fact that most people 

i n a com mu nit y ra rely ca ll on t he pol ice for 

ser v ices does not change this, because police 

and other legal actors are in the background in 
12 | New Perspec tives in Policing 

ever y communit y and shape what people t hink, 

feel and do. People want to feel comfort, not fear, 

when the police are present and to anticipate that 

they w ill receive help and professional t reatment 

when they need it. W hen they do, t hey become 

invested in the communities in which t hey live. 

Research on popular legitimacy, to which police 

contribute, suggests t hat when people evaluate 

t hei r pol ice a nd cou r t s ystems as procedura l ly 

fair, t hey identif y more w it h their communities 

and engage in them socially by trust ing neighbors, 

p ol i t ic a l l y b y v o t i n g , a nd e c onom ic a l l y b y 

shoppi ng a nd goi ng to enter t a i n ment venues 

within that communit y.45 

Police play a critical role in teaching the people 

w it h whom t hey interact (and t hose who obser ve 

t hose interactions) what it means to be a citizen.46 

Writing recently in t he Annals, Justice and Meares 

a rg ue t hat t he cr i mi na l just ice system offers a 

cu r ricu lum of lessons on what it mea ns to be 

a cit i zen, much as public schools do. The over t 

cu r r icu lu m of policing, fou nd most obv iously 

in t he tex t of t he Un ited States Const it ut ion, is 

designed to convey concern for rights. People’s 

i nt er e s t s i n a u t o n om y, p r i v a c y a n d b o d i l y 

integrit y ought not to be subject to the whim of 

an indiv idual police officer. We are a government 

of laws designed to restrain state power against 

t he indiv idual. Education theorists explain t hat a 

hidden curriculum is often taught alongside the 

over t cu rr icu lu m t y pica l ly fou nd in tex tbook s 

a nd of f ic i a l r ubr ic s. I n sc ho ol s, t he h idden 

curriculum may be found in adult/student and 

student/st udent interact ions, in t he enforcement 

of school discipli ne policies a nd behav ior codes, 

in the deeply buried assumptions and narratives 

of h i s t or y t e x tbo ok s , i n a s c hool’s c hoic e of 

mascot, in who gets to sit where in the cafeteria, or 

in t he musical select ions at t he prom. The hidden 

curriculum of policing, similarly, is a function of 

how people a re t reated i n i nteract ions a nd t he 

ways in which groups derive meaning regarding 

t heir status in t he eyes of legal aut horit y result ing 

f r o m t h at t r e a t m e n t . To o of t e n t he h id d e n 

curriculum of policing strateg ies sends certain 

cit izens clear signals t hat they are members of a 

special, dangerous and undesirable class — t he 

m ir ror image of t he posit ive over t cur r icu lum. 

People do not necessa r i ly lea r n t hese lessons. 

W hat is learned depends i n pa r t on t he deg ree 

and frequency of exposure and on indiv idual and 

com mu nit y resilience. A s Just ice a nd Meares 

note: 

[T]he hidde n c ur r ic u lum f lour i s he s 

i n t hose contex ts where democrac y is 

d i s l o c a t e d . I n h i g h -p er fo r m i n g 

publ ic a nd pr i v at e s c ho ol s, t e ac her s 

a n d s t u de nt s w or k t o g e t he r t o w a rd 

c om mon goa l s t hat honor t he s oc ia l 

c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t he s c h o ol , t he 

student, the family, and t he communit y; 

punishment is appropr iate and mercif ul, 

a nd of fers forg iveness; i nter per sona l 

i nter ac t ion s enc ou r age suc c e s s a nd 

rea f f i r m belong i ng ; t r u st i s endem ic. 

Remove t he confluence of interests, t he 

accountabilit y of those w ith aut horit y to 

those under it, the fundamental sense of 

legit imacy, and t he hidden cur riculum 

eats away at the over t.47 
Rightful Policing | 13 

Com m it ment to r ig ht f ul policing can help, but 

executives cannot be sanguine about its potential 

impact. The approach requires broadly conceived 

a nd c oord i n ate d ef for t s a mon g a v a r ie t y of 

c o n t e x t s — c r i m e r e d u c t i o n , c o m m u n i t y 

relations and, importantly, internal discipline48 

— to effect real change. 

Endnotes 

1. See Nicholas Gra ham, Obama on Skip Gates 

Arrest: Police Acted “St upidly,” Hu ffi ngt on 

Post, Aug. 22, 2009, http://w w w.huffi ngtonpost. 

c o m / 2 0 0 9 / 0 7/ 2 2 / o b a m a - o n - s k i p - g a t e s -

arres_n_243250.ht ml (last v isited Nov. 13, 2014). 

2. Rachel A. Harmon, The Problem of Policing, 110 

Mich. L. Rev. 761 (2011). 

3. Christopher Stone & Jerem y Tr avis, Toward 

a Ne w Professiona l ism in Policing (2 011), 

http://w w w.nij.gov/pubs-sum/232359.htm (last 

v isited Nov. 13, 2014). 

4. Dav id H. Bay ley, Police for the Fu tur e 3 

(1994). 

5 . For one e x a m p l e c r i t ic i z i n g t he p ol ic e -

law f ulness tradeoff, consider t he discussion by 

Meares and Kahan of the legal struggle regarding 

searches for g uns in Chicago public housing. See 

Tr acey L . Me a r es & Da n M. K a h a n, Urgen t 

T i m es: Pol ici ng a n d R igh ts i n I n n er Ci t y 

Communities (1999). 

6. See id. at 18–22. 

7. Stone & Tr avis, supra note 3, at 1 (noting that 

accountabilit y is a critical aspect of what t hey call 

t he “new professionalism,” along w ith legitimac y, 

innovat ion and nat iona l coherence). 

8. See id. at 12. (“The best chiefs speak confident ly 

about ‘t he t h ree C’s: cr ime, cost and conduct. 

Police departments today are accountable for all 

t hree.”) 

9. Id. at 12–15. 

10. See A n t hon y Br aga & Dav id Weisbu r d, 

Policing Problem Pl aces: Cr ime Hot Spots 

and Effective Prevention (2010). 

11. See National Research Council, Fair ness 

and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence 

297 (Wesley Skogan & Kathleen Fr ydl, eds., 2004); 

A nt hony A . Braga, Bra ndon C . Wel sh & Cor y 

Schnel l, Can Policing Disorder Reduce Crime? 

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, J. R es. 

Cr i m e & D e l i nq. (For t hc om i n g ); A n t hon y 

A. Br aga, Probl em-Or ien ted Policing a n d 

Crime Prevention (2d ed., 2008). 

12. See Tra nscr ipt, Bloomberg Vows to Appeal 

Fed eral Judge’s Ruling Th at Stop -and-F ri sk 

Policy Violated Civil Rights in Press Conference, 

N.Y. Da i ly Ne ws, Aug. 12 , 20 03, ht t p://w w w. 

nyd a i l y ne w s.com/ne w s/pol it ic s/ bloomber gvow s-appea l-fe der a l-judge-r u l i ng-stop-stopand-f r isk-pol ic y-ar t icle-1.1424630 (last v isited 

Nov. 13, 2014); John Eterno & Eli Silverman, Mike 

Bloomberg’s Fact-Free Defence of Stop-and-Frisk, 
 

 

 

14 | New Perspectives in Policing 

T h e Gua rdi an, S e pt . 11, 2 013, ht t p://w w w. 

t heguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/ 

stop-a nd-f r isk-m ichael-bloomberg (last v isited 

Nov. 13, 2014). 

13. See Tracey L. Meares & Dan M. Kahan, Law 

and (Norms of) Order in Inner Cit y, 32 L aw & Soc’y 

Rev. 805, 830–32 (1998) (discussing communit y 

empowerment through law enforcement). 

14. Tr acey L. Mear es et al., Lawful or Fair? 

How Cops and L aypeople View Good Policing 

(Social Science Research Net work) (2012), http:// 

papers.ssrn.com/abst ract=2116645 (last v isited 

Nov. 13, 2014). 

15. See Tom R. Tyler & Jeffrey Fagan, Legitimacy 

and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police 

Fight Cr ime in Their Communit ies?, 6 O h io 

St. J. Cr i m. L . 231, 262 (20 08); Tom R . Ty ler & 

Cher yl Wakslak, Profiling and Police Legitimacy: 

Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and 

Acceptance of Police Authority, 42 Cr iminology 

253, 255 (2004); Tom R. T yler, Trust in the Law: 

Encour aging Public Cooper ation With the 

Police and Courts (2002); Ray mond Paternoster 

et a l., Do Fair Procedures Matter? The Effect of 

Procedural Justice on Spouse Assault, 31 L aw & 

Soc’y R ev. 163 (1997). 

16. See Tom R. Tyler, Enhancing Police Legitimacy, 

593 A nnals A m. Aca d. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 84, 94 

(2004). 

17. See id. 

18. National Research Council, supra note 11, 

at 297. 

19. See generally L egi t i m ac y a n d Cr im ina l 

Justice: International Perspectiv es (A nt hony 

Braga et al., eds., 2007) (exploring the impact of 

percept ions of leg it i mac y i n c r i m i na l just ice 

systems across t he globe). 

20. Tom R. T y ler, Wh y People Obey the L aw 

(repr i nt, 2006). 

21. See Tracey L. Meares, The Good Cop: Knowing 

the Difference between Lawful or Effective Policing 

and Rightful Policing — And Why It Matters, 54 

Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1865, 1879 (2012) (prov iding 

this illust rative fig ure). 

22. See, e.g., Tracey L. Meares, Inaugural Barrock 

Lecture on Criminal Law: The Legitimacy of Police 

Among Young Af rican American Men, 92 M a rq. L . 

R ev. 651 (2009). 

23. See A ndrew V. Papachristos, Tracey L. Meares 

& Jef f re y Faga n, Attention Felons: Evaluating 

P roje ct S afe Ne ighb orh oo d s in Chi c ag o, 4 J. 

Empirical Legal Stud. 223 (2007). 

24. Lorraine Mazerolle et al., Procedural Justice, 

Rout ine Enc ounters an d Cit izen Perc ept ion s 

of Police: Main Findings f rom the Queensland 

C o m m un i t y E n g ag e m e n t Tr i a l (Q C ET) , 8 

J. E x pe r i m e n ta l C r i m i nol o g y 3 4 3 (2 01 2) 

[hereinafter Mazerolle et al., Procedural Justice]; 

L o r r a i ne M a z er o l le e t a l ., Sh aping C it i z en 

Perceptions of Police Legitimacy: A Randomized 

Field Trial of Procedural Justice, 51 Criminology 

33 (2013) [herei na f ter Ma zerol le et a l., Shaping 

Citizen Perceptions]. 
 

 

Right ful Policing | 15 

25. See Mazerolle et al., Procedural Justice, supra 

note 24. 

2 6 . Se e Papac h r i s to s et a l., supra not e 2 3 

(describing the federal initiative). 

27. See Eva luating Gun Policy: Effects on 

Cr ime a nd Violence (Jens Ludw ig & Ph il ip 

J. Cook, ed., Brook ings Institution Press, 2003) 

(evaluating Project Ex ile). 

28. See David M. Kennedy, Deterrence and 

C r i me Pr e v e n t ion: R e c o n s i de r ing t he 

P ro s pe c t of S a nc t ion (Ro u t l e d g e, 2 0 0 8) 

(describing the inter vention). For an analysis 

of the crime control impacts of this and similar 

prog ra ms, see A nt hony A . Braga & Dav id L . 

Wei sbu rd, The Ef fects of Focused Deterrence 

Strategies on Crime: A Systematic Review and 

Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence, 49 J. Res. 

Crime & Delinq. 323 (2011). 

29. See Papachristos et al., supra note 23, at 223. 

30. See id. at 258–59. 

31. S e e A n dr e w V. Pa pa c h r i s t o s e t a l ., 

Desi s ta nc e a n d L e gi t i m ac y: T h e I m pac t 

of Of f e n de r No t i f ic at ion M e e t i ngs on 

R ec i di v ism A mong H igh R i sk Of f e n de r s 

(Social Science Research Network, 2013), http:// 

papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2240232 (last visited 

Nov. 13, 2014). 

32. L or r a in e M a zerol l e, Sa r a h Ben n et t, 

Emm a A n t robus & E liz a bet h Eggi ns, K ey 

Fi ndi ngs of t h e Qu eensl a nd Commu nit y 

Engagement Trial (Austl. Res. Council Centre 

of Excellence in Policing and Securit y Briefing 

Paper Series No. 8, 2011). 

33. See id. at 7. 

34. P et er W. Ne y rou d, R ev i e w of Pol ice 

Lea dership a nd Tr a ining (Repor t to Home 

Sec’y, 2011). 

3 5. Se e Ja n e t B.L . C h a n e t a l ., Fa i r C op: 

Lear ning the Art of Policing (Universit y of 

Toronto Press, 2003). 

36. See Neyroud, supra note 34. 

37. See Pam Grimes & Gay nor Hall, Respectful 

Policing in Chicago: Changing the Us vs Them 

Mentality (WGN-TV television broadcast, Sept. 9, 

2013), http://wgntv.com/2013/09/09/respectfulpolicing-in-chicago (last visited Nov. 13, 2014). 

38. Wesley G. Skogan, The 2013 Officer Training 

Experiment (Oct. 2014) (unpublished manuscript), 

h t t p : // w w w. s k o ga n. o r g / f i l es / E x e c u t iv e _ 

Summar y_2013_Training _Experiment.pdf (last 

visited Nov. 13, 2014). 

39. Lev in Wheller, Paul Quinton, A listair 

F i l d e s & A n d y M i l l s , T h e G r e a t e r 

M a nch est e r Pol ice P rocedu r a l Just ice 

T r a i n ing E x pe r im en t: T ech n ic a l R e port 

(2013), ht t p://l ibra r y.col lege.pol ice.u k /docs/ 

college-of-policing/Technical-Report.pdf (last 

visited Nov. 13, 2014). 

40. See Anthony Braga, Brandon Welsh & Cor y 

Schnell, Broken Windows Policing to Reduce 

C r i me i n Neig hb orho od s: Fi nd i ng s f rom a 
16 | New Perspec tives in Policing 

Campbell Collaborat ion Systemat ic Rev iew and 

Meta-A na lysis (Paper presented at t he annua l 

meeting of the A merican Societ y of Criminolog y, 

Chicago, IL, Nov. 22, 2013). 

41. John D. McClusk ey, Police R equests for 

Compliance: Coercive and Procedur ally Just 

Tactics (2003). 

4 2 . I a n L o a d e r, Policing , Re c og nit ion , and 

Belonging, 605 A nna ls A m. Aca d. Pol. & Soc. 

Sci. 202, 211 (2006) (citation omitted) (c it i ng 

Neil Walker, Policing and the Supranational, 12 

Policing & Soc’y 307, 315 (2002)). 

43. See Ian Loader & Aogán Mulcahy, Policing 

a n d t h e C on di t ion of E ngl a n d: M e mor y, 

Politics and Culture (2003). Another primar y 

iconic sy mbol is t he red telephone box, not to be 

conf used w it h the blue police box. 

44. Mar kus Dirk Dubber, The Police Pow er: 

Patriarchy and the Foundations of American 

Government (2005). 

45. Tom R. Tyler & Jonat ha n Jack son, Popular 

Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: 

Mot ivat ing C omp li an c e , Coop e rat i on an d 

Engagement, 20 Ps ychol., P u b. Pol’y & L . 78 

(2014). 

46. Benja mi n Just ice & Tracey L . Mea res, How 

the Criminal Justice System Educates Citizens, 651 

Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 159 (2014). 

47. Id. at 175. 

48. Bernard K. Melek ian, Values-Based Discipline: 

T h e Ke y t o O r g a n i z a t ion a l Tr a n s fo r m a t ion 

Wit hin Law Enforcement Agencies (July 24, 2012) 

(u npubl i s he d Ph .D. d i s s er t at ion, Un iv er sit y 

of Sout hern Ca l i for n ia) (on fi le w it h t he Pr ice 

School of Publ ic Polic y, Universit y of Sout her n 

California). 

Author Note 

Tr ac e y L . Me a re s i s Wa lton Ha le Ha m i lton 

P rofessor of L aw a nd Di rec tor of t he Just ic e 

Collaborator y at Yale Law School. Peter Ney roud 

CBE QPM, who is Affi liated Lecturer and Resident 

Scholar at t he Jerr y Lee Centre for Experimental 

Crim inolog y, Inst it ute of Crim inolog y, Universit y 

of Cambridge, cont ributed to an earlier version 

of t his paper. 

Findings and conclusions in this publication are t hose of t he author and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
NCJ 248411

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” 

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~248411*