Page 34 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 34 of 223 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
22
norms or professionalism. The police were more interested in bringing in extra
money and resources for themselves and the political machine (1976).
Furthermore, police investigators were used to probe political opponents and
to antagonize personal enemies (Kelling and Moore 1991, 8). It was common for
officers to use excessive force, and the “third degree”11 was often employed while
questioning suspects (Kelling and Moore 1991, 8; Walker 1999, 26; Report of the
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968 [“Kerner Report”], 301).
The police on the streets of the neighborhoods adjudicated disputes or violations of
law by force or “curbstone justice” if necessary (Kelling and Moore 1991, 9). New
York police officer Alexander “Clubber” Williams, an associate of Tammany Hall,
expressed his department’s law enforcement philosophy by observing that “there is
more law in the end of a policeman’s nightstick than in all of the decisions of the
courts” (Walker 1998, 62).12 As the influential Kerner Report noted, looking
retrospectively on past police practices:
In an earlier era third-degree interrogations were widespread, indiscriminate
arrest on suspicion were generally accepted, and “alley justice” dispensed
with the nightstick was common (Report of the National Advisory
Commission on Civil Disorders 1968, 301).
11 The “third degree” refers to “the employment of methods which inflict suffering, physical or
mental, upon a person in order to obtain information about a crime” (National Commission on Law
Observance and Enforcement 1931 [“Wickersham Commission Report”], 19). The exact origin of
this term is unknown; nevertheless, Skolnick and Fyfe note that “[w]hatever its origin, the term third
degree signifies a prime occasion for police brutality” (Skolnick and Fyfe 1993, 43).
12 The origin for various permutations of this quote appears multifold. Walker attributes one variant
of this sentiment to New York City police officer Thomas Byrnes (Walker 1977, 8) and then later to
Alexander “Clubber” Williams (Walker 1998, 62). The popular phrase was most likely utilized by
various individuals, but the prevailing contemporary attribution is to “Clubber” Williams. See also
Paul Chevigny, “Police Brutality,” the Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict 2008 [first
proof], Elsevier Inc., p. 3.
Object Description
| Title | Policing accountability: an empirical investigation of state-sponsored police reform in Riverside, California |
| Author | Gomez, Jose Adolfo |
| Author email | jagclash@yahoo.com; jgomez@treasurer.ca.gov |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-01 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Restricted until 13 Oct. 2010. |
| Date published | 2010-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Newland, Chester A. Wong, Janelle S. |
| Abstract | The police have the ability to detain, arrest, and use force when necessary. Police accountability is thus of paramount concern to the public. Numerous examples of police misconduct, including cases of excessive force, brutality, and corruption, appear regularly via the news media. These incidents often evidence systemic organizational problems in law enforcement agencies. Scholars have observed that attempts at police reform have placed too much emphasis on individuals behaving badly, rather than on the systemic problems of the police department.; Beginning in the second half of the 1990s, federal and state Attorneys General began employing institutional reform litigation, in the form of consent decrees, to reform law enforcement agencies and enhance police accountability. The consent decrees were crafted to address systemic organizational dysfunction in local police departments. The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) conducted most of these reform interventions. However, a notable exception was the settlement agreement between the Attorney General of the State of California and the City of Riverside, California.; There has been little research on the efficacy of these efforts to rehabilitate law enforcement agencies. This analysis is a case study of the effectiveness of the institutional reform intervention by the California Attorney General into the Riverside Police Department (RPD). The detailed examination revealed that the intervention produced constructive changes in the way the RPD conducts its business. The RPD became more professional, effective, transparent and accountable as it implemented the provisions of the consent decree, demonstrating that institutional reform litigation can result in meaningful police reform. The shadow of the law was ever present, encouraging an ethos of cooperation and exerting pressure for meaningful organizational change. The Riverside experience suggests that a facilitative oversight style produces constructive collaboration between the parties, improving the likelihood of durable police reform. Moreover, consent decrees to correct systemic police misconduct should not be the exclusive purview of the USDOJ. State Attorneys General can effectively initiate police reform and in some cases state intervention is a more appropriate alternative. |
| Keyword | institutional reform; police reform; police accountability; state attorney's general; police misconduct; organizational change; consent decrees |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Riverside |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Coverage date | 1993/2008 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1664 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Gomez, Jose Adolfo |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Gomez-2358 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume29/etd-Gomez-2358.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 34 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 22 norms or professionalism. The police were more interested in bringing in extra money and resources for themselves and the political machine (1976). Furthermore, police investigators were used to probe political opponents and to antagonize personal enemies (Kelling and Moore 1991, 8). It was common for officers to use excessive force, and the “third degree”11 was often employed while questioning suspects (Kelling and Moore 1991, 8; Walker 1999, 26; Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968 [“Kerner Report”], 301). The police on the streets of the neighborhoods adjudicated disputes or violations of law by force or “curbstone justice” if necessary (Kelling and Moore 1991, 9). New York police officer Alexander “Clubber” Williams, an associate of Tammany Hall, expressed his department’s law enforcement philosophy by observing that “there is more law in the end of a policeman’s nightstick than in all of the decisions of the courts” (Walker 1998, 62).12 As the influential Kerner Report noted, looking retrospectively on past police practices: In an earlier era third-degree interrogations were widespread, indiscriminate arrest on suspicion were generally accepted, and “alley justice” dispensed with the nightstick was common (Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968, 301). 11 The “third degree” refers to “the employment of methods which inflict suffering, physical or mental, upon a person in order to obtain information about a crime” (National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement 1931 [“Wickersham Commission Report”], 19). The exact origin of this term is unknown; nevertheless, Skolnick and Fyfe note that “[w]hatever its origin, the term third degree signifies a prime occasion for police brutality” (Skolnick and Fyfe 1993, 43). 12 The origin for various permutations of this quote appears multifold. Walker attributes one variant of this sentiment to New York City police officer Thomas Byrnes (Walker 1977, 8) and then later to Alexander “Clubber” Williams (Walker 1998, 62). The popular phrase was most likely utilized by various individuals, but the prevailing contemporary attribution is to “Clubber” Williams. See also Paul Chevigny, “Police Brutality,” the Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict 2008 [first proof], Elsevier Inc., p. 3. |
