The Function of the Police Force: A Behavior-Analytic Review of the History of How Policing in America Came to Be

Abstract

The racial differentiation of policing in America has been widely researched and documented (Walker & Katz, 2008; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Although these discrepancies are largely documented, there have been few changes within the policies, procedures and laws governing police officers. The results of this are two-fold. First, it has led to the continuation of individual acts of racism of police officers across the country. Second, it has upheld the systemic racism that results in the discrepancies in outcomes between Black people and white people, making it more likely that Black individuals will interact with police officers and have more negative outcomes as a result of these interactions. The reasons for this include lack of data regarding the race of the police officers involved in fatal officer-involved shootings, reliance on self-report of officers regarding instances of excessive force, and lack of accountability of individuals and departments alike. These issues are symptoms of the larger problems of individual and institutionalized racism that not only increases racism within those within the police force, but also increases the likeliness that any police officer will engage in violence against a person of color. To develop effective interventions that will change policing behaviors and the racism observed within the police force, one must first understand the historical development and function of policing and its intersection with both individual and institutional racism. This paper will provide a clear definition of racism followed by a function-based behavior analytic examination of the historical development of policing in America.

Racism and discrimination in America are well researched and documented (Aboud, 1988; Arhin & Thyer, 2004; Corenblum & Annis, 1993). Both racist and discriminatory acts and beliefs have been observed in children as young as 6 years of age (Katz, 2003). Studies have shown that White children demonstrate the highest levels of discrimination against those who are Black and of other non-White groups (Corenblum & Annis, 1993). Although racism and discrimination affect all areas of American society and structure, racism within the police force is especially important. Several studies have documented the discrepancy of police interactions with people of color in the United States (DeVylder et al., 2018; Edwards et al., 2019; Ross, 2015, 2017). Despite the lengthy list of research articles and extensive documentation of racism in America and within the police force, there exists little change to both individual acts of racism and institutional policies and systems that uphold and reinforce this behavior (Matsuda et al., 2020). There are several reasons for this lack of progress and change. These reasons include the historical development of the police force in America, the current constitution of the police force, the lack of clear and consistent policies within and across police departments, poor training, and a lack of accountability. This article will describe the unique aspects of policing in America that relate to institutional and/or individual racism by analyzing its historical and present functions.

Notes on Race and Racism

Definition of Race

There are several articles and studies that have examined race and racism in America (Arhin & Thyer, 2004; Dixon et al., 2003; Du Bois, 1903; Hesse, 2011; Matsuda et al., 2020; Memmi, 2000; Miles & Brown, 2003; Weinstein et al., 2008). However, although the words “race” and “racism” are used in everyday language and have been widely researched, their definitions are not always clearly stated and differ among researchers and theoretical orientations. There are ongoing discussions regarding the difference between individual acts of racism and institutional racism, questions regarding whether or not individuals who are White or of the dominant race are the only individuals who can engage in racism, and how to determine if an individual instance of behavior is racist, biased, ignorant, or simply poorly timed. Thus, prior to discussing race and racism in the police force, it is important to provide a framework of these terms so readers of this article have a shared understanding.

W. E. B. Du Bois discussed race in his early works, stating that race was a “badge” that those who have “suffered long disaster” are forced to wear and is focused on those who have similar and shared memories and experiences of the past (Du Bois, 1903). This social construction of the idea of race is based on the idea that there are biological differences between individuals and that these differences are hierarchical in nature (Hesse, 2011). However, although the premise of race is based on the idea of biological differences, there are discrepancies even in the way in which race is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (2020). Two documents on the 2020census.gov website explaining racial categories define Black as “a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa” including “African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somali, Ghanaian, South African, Barbadian, Kenyan, and Bahamian.” The definition of White includes individuals who identify with “one or more nationalities or ethnic groups originating in Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” including “German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian, Polish, French, Iranian, Slavic, Cajun, and Chaldean.” However, although those from the Middle East or Northern Africa are asked to identify as White on the U.S. census and other legal documents that request racial identification, American policies have singled out individuals from the Middle East as separate from those from Europe and other White Americans (Rutgers University, 2020). A recent study investigated how individuals of European descent viewed individuals from the Middle East and policies that discriminate against these individuals (Chaney et al., 2020). There were two relevant findings: (a) there was not agreement among participants as to whether individuals of Middle Eastern descent are White, and (b) those who did not agree that individuals of Middle Eastern descent were White were more likely to support discriminatory policies against them. The discussion of race and its connection to biology is long-standing; however, many studies have proven that differences in biology, including differences in predispositions to disease and other health concerns, are largely due to lifestyle factors, rather than biological differences between individuals of different races (Cooper, 2013; Cooper et al., 1997; Cooper et al., 2005; Wolf-Maier et al., 2003). For example, Cooper (2013) studied the impact of race on blood pressure and hypertension. Since the 1930s, it has been shown that Black Americans have a higher average blood pressure than White Americans, and this finding has been reported and remains consistent today. However, Cooper (2005) studied 11,000 adults between the ages of 25 and 64 in urban and rural West Africa, the West Indies, and the United States. He found that blood pressures were low in rural Africa and that blood pressures of those in the West Indies were similar to White Americans. However, Black Americans living in an urban setting were 50% more likely to have hypertension than their White counterparts. This study was supported by previous studies that found White populations in Europe had substantially higher blood pressures than Black Americans (Cooper et al., 2005). Thus, although differences between races have been reported for almost 100 years, more current research has found that the differences are not biological or determined by DNA differences, but are instead determined by lifestyle differences. Based on his findings, Cooper (2013) stated that although variation exists among geographic populations, racial categories that segment or divide the human population do not exist (Cooper, 2013). Thus, the development of the concept of race was intended to and has resulted in the discrimination of Black.

Researchers have attempted to define race outside of the U.S. census categories of ancestral origin; however, they still struggle to identify exactly what characteristics separate individuals of different races. Memmi (2000), for example, defined race to include physical and behavioral characteristics. These categorizations are just as flawed as those based on ancestry, if not more so, as behavioral characteristics are learned throughout one’s lifetime and differ across regions, socioeconomic status, education levels, and many additional characteristics found throughout the United States. Additionally, Witherspoon et al. (2007) found that genetic and behavioral differences are more varied within populations of people than between them. In short, although racial categories first emerged in the 15th century, over 6 centuries later, we are still arguing about what they mean.

Despite the difficulty in defining race as a concept or categorization of individuals, for the purposes of this article, we will define race within the context of policing in America. Thus, race is defined as a categorical assignment, or tact, of a person based on that person’s physical characteristics, including skin pigmentation. This definition is based on anecdotal information received by police officers working within a suburban police department in the Midwest, as well as officers working in a rural southern town that shares a border with Mexico. Officers were asked how they categorize individuals when providing descriptions of potential suspects. They reported that they primarily use the racial categories of Black, White, and Hispanic and make the determination based almost solely on the pigmentation of one’s skin.

Institutional Racism and Individual Racism

Not surprisingly, “racism” is as difficult to define as the term “race.” For the purposes of examining the historical development of the police force, it is important to distinguish between individual racism and institutional racism, as it is the intersection of these response classes that makes the police force a unique institution that increases the likelihood that individuals will engage in racist behavior against Black and Brown people.

To understand institutional racism, one must first recognize when the term “race” was introduced into society, as well as the historical motivations for creating the term. The term “race” was born in the 1400s during the Portuguese slave trade under the rule of Prince Henry (Kendi, 2017). It was during this time that the slave trade, which originally enslaved Eastern European Slavs, began enslaving individuals in Africa. During this time, Prince Henry instructed an author, Gomes Eanes de Zurara, to write The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea (de Zurara, 1896). In this book, the author first introduced the concept of race to highlight the differences between Portuguese and African people and justify slavery by introducing the notion that African people were less than Portuguese people. Thus, the term “race” was constructed as a way to legitimize the dominance of White people (Portuguese) over non-White people (Africans). The reason for this was so that Prince Henry could justify the mass murder and enslavement of individuals in Africa. Ultimately, the motivation was to gain access to land, wealth, and political power. This ideology was brought to the United States and is well documented as early as 1790, when the nation first began taking a census of the racial demographics in the country (Prewitt, 2005). The purpose of racial categories was initially to distinguish between the civil statuses of free versus enslaved, taxed versus untaxed. The initial census of 1790 had three distinct categories of race: European, African, and (untaxed) Native American. This census provided the foundation for all racial categorizations to follow. Since then, the racial categories have shifted, largely due to the political influences associated with each change. For example, in 1790, an enslaved person was only counted as three fifths of a person so that the southern states did not have more political power than the northern states, which had fewer individuals who were enslaved (Prewitt, 2005). This continued in the early 1800s, when the new classification of “free colored” was created to separate individuals who were free and Black from those who were enslaved and those who were White. The classification changes can also be seen with other groups, including Mexican, Chinese, and Japanese, all of which have changed in classification over time. In short, the development and continuation of race and the racial categorization of individuals in  the United States are largely tied to political influences, wealth, and power. Thus, “institutional racism” is defined as the response class or set of behaviors that results in the acquisition and retention of wealth and political power by those who currently have it.1 More specifically, the function of institutional racism is to retain the political power and wealth of those who currently have it (White people). As explored in detail later in this article, the police force is the direct result of institutional racism in that it was developed to protect and retain the interests of the wealthy and those in political power (Gaines et al., 1999; Parks, 1976; Reichel, 1992; Waxman, 2017).

Individual racism, however, is different from institutional racism. To understand individual racism, one must understand the complexity of human behavior and the different environmental factors responsible for the development and maintenance of the behavior of an individual. One can learn and engage in racism through a variety of social reinforcers: positive reinforcement in the form of social approval, positive reinforcement in the form of access to tangible items and activities, and negative reinforcement in the form of escape from or avoidance of aversive stimuli and environments. However, individual racism cannot solely be defined based on function. Individual racism is developed through a learning history that includes respondent and operant conditioning, as well as the development of relational framing. (For a thorough discussion of the development of individual racism through respondent and operant conditioning, read Arhin & Thyer, 2004; Matsuda et al., 2020. For a thorough discussion of the development of individual racism through relational framing, read Dixon et al., 2003; Weinstein et al., 2008.)

Although individual racism is developed through a complex learning history, it is important to note that individual racism is a form of response bias. Response bias refers to individuals responding to other idiosyncratic variables also present in the environment, instead of what are thought to be “prevailing”, or controlling contingencies (Bourret et al., 2012). Biases develop based on learning history and the reinforcement of biased responding. Racial bias, or individual racism, is the response to or interaction with an individual based on stimulus control by that person’s race, as opposed to other prevailing contingencies, such as broader aspects of the person—their behavior, beliefs, communication patterns, and so on. Racial bias, then, is the result of faulty stimulus control in that the race of one individual is what exerts control over the behavior of another. In America, this faulty stimulus control may develop inadvertently (e.g., a police officer paying more attention to Black drivers and therefore pulling them over more often), or it may be intentionally taught and reinforced (e.g., a police trainer directly telling trainees that Black people are more likely to commit crimes). Whether intentional or not, such a learning history may result in an individual responding to a White person differently than to a Black person.

Identifying individual acts of racism can be difficult, as this identification often relies on topographical definitions. As individual racism is a form of biased responding, one must observe differential responding between two people of different races or a pattern of responding with individuals of one race in order to determine if this responding is in fact biased. With respect to the responding of police officers, individual acts of racism can be identified by examining the interactions of an officer with individuals of different races. If it is identified that an officer interacts with a White person differently than with a Black person, bias based on race may be hypothesized. Examples include differing rates of Black people being killed by police officers as compared to White people, the increased likelihood of Black people being stopped by a police officer compared to White people, and the increased likelihood of Black people being charged with a crime when stopped by a police officer compared to White people (DeGue et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2019).

The interconnectedness of institutional racism and individual racism is important to note. In policing, both individual racism and institutional racism account for the heightened likelihood of an interaction between a Black person and an officer leading to negative outcomes. For example, if a police officer asks a White person for their identification and the White person asks why, the officer may not see this as a threat and answer the question. However, if this officer engages in racial bias, or individual racism, they may interpret this same question, “why,” from a Black citizen as a threat or an aggressive act and instead respond with an order or threat of escalation of force. Institutional racism accounts for the way that “criminal behavior” is defined and regulated by those in the police force. To understand this, we must investigate the development of the police force in America.

A Functional Perspective on the History of Police in America

Before understanding the current climate of police systems in America, it is important to understand their establishment and development throughout history. This article will not provide an extensive review of the history of police in America, but it will provide an overview to highlight three main variables: (a) the function of police, (b) the involvement of police in political power, and (c) the coercive nature of police. These three variables provide a lens through which one can understand the unique context of how and why the police force increases the likelihood of both institutional racism and individual racism.

The police system in America had two beginnings: one in the North and one in the South (Waxman, 2017); however, both systems were developed to keep political power and wealth with specific sets of individuals, primarily the Dutch and British immigrants. In southern America, the police force began as the “slave patrol,” created in 1704 in the Carolina colonies. Its primary functions were to (a) find and return enslaved Black people to their owners, (b) prevent and deter revolts, and (b) maintain discipline for enslaved Black people if they violated any plantation rules (Reichel, 1992). In northern America, although the police were not developed as “slave patrols,” they were developed for a similar purpose. Here, the focus was on German and Irish immigrants. The wealthy business owners of the time hired police to control and regulate the behavior of the German and Irish immigrants for two main purposes: (a) to ensure immigrants were able to work as cheap labor for the wealthy business owners and (b) to ensure immigrants’ behavior was regulated such that they could not gain wealth or political power (Gaines et al., 1999; Parks, 1976). In both regions of the United States, police forces were developed to regulate the behavior of those who did not hold any wealth or political power at the time. Behaviors that threatened the continued cheap or free labor, such as public drunkenness, prostitution, refusal to work, rebellion, and flight from the plantations, were criminalized with one purpose in mind: to keep the wealth with the wealthy and the political power with those who had it (Gaines et al., 1999; Waxman, 2017). In the early 1900s, the Great Migration, which resulted in Black people moving into northern and western urban areas, shifted the focus of northern police from European immigrants to Black people. This was largely due to novelty and White people’s lack of experience with and exposure to Black people living in those communities at the time (Moore, 2020). This resulted in fear and hostility of White people toward Black people, due to the perception that Black people engaged in behavior that would threaten White people’s safety and security, as well as the perception that Black people would take all of the jobs, leaving White people without work (Moore, 2020). As such, police departments began focusing on Black people (Moore, 2020). By the end of the 19th century, police were characterized by their focus on regulating the behavior of Black people, those they presumed to not hold wealth and political power to ensure it remained with those who held it, namely White people (Lundman, 1980).

Further supporting the focus of the police force is the historical intertwining of police in politics and business ownership. Police executives (chiefs) were initially appointed by the local political party leader and were often the owners of the local taverns (Walker & Katz, 2008). These appointed police chiefs were largely involved in gambling, prostitution, and gangs and acted on behalf of the political leaders who placed them in power (Walker & Katz, 2008). Today, the involvement of with respect to police chiefs continues, as police chiefs are either elected by the citizens in the region, appointed by the mayor, or appointed by the city council. Considering the way police chiefs are placed into power along with the historical underpinnings of the function of police officers, one can deduce that police chiefs who want to maintain their position may be motivated to behave in accordance with those in political power, thus continuing the cycle of the police force being largely focused on individuals who may threaten to take control of that power.

Police also have a history of using coercion and physical force to control the behavior of others (Lundman, 1980; Silver, 1967; Walker & Katz, 2008). This coercive behavior continues today, as is seen throughout the justice system, which focuses on implementing punishment for breaking the law. Research has demonstrated that coercive interactions typically result in additional countercontrol from the other party, as both parties escalate, hoping to end the interaction (Biglan, 2015; Sidman, 1989). In other words, when one person engages in behavior that another individual perceives as aversive and, therefore, is motivated to escape, the other individual may engage in behavior to end the interaction and, therefore, escape the situation. In turn, the first person may do something even more aversive to escape the behavior of the other, further escalating the situation. Tracing this pattern, it is easy to see how police interactions can escalate. Functionally, police officers are called to or arrive on a scene to control the behavior of others. Let us examine a police officer being called to a scene of an alleged crime. Because someone has been accused of committing a crime, the officer may arrive on the scene and immediately take an aggressive stance, for example, by providing firm, direct instructions for compliance. The officer may say “give me your ID” to one of the individuals, expecting immediate compliance. However, instead of handing over identification, the individual instead may respond by saying, “No, why are you bothering me? I’m not involved in this.” This interaction is the first instance of a negative interaction, which may lead to coercive strategies on the police officer’s part to gain compliance and control over the situation. Thus, the police officer may escalate the situation by threatening to put the individual in handcuffs if they do not hand over their identification. The individual, behaving in the same coercive manner, may then yell, “Leave me alone, ACAB [all cops are bastards]!” Continuing with the coercive nature of the interaction, the police officer may pull out a Taser and threaten to use it if the individual does not comply. Continuing the pattern of coercion and countercontrol, the individual may engage in another behavior in an attempt to escape the interaction. Thus, the individual may again yell, “Leave me alone! I did nothing wrong! You’re just messing with me because I’m Black!” The officer may then respond with further coercion to gain compliance by grabbing the individual and placing them in handcuffs. The individual may engage in countercontrol by pleading to be let go. The officer, who is also engaging in behavior to escape and terminate the interaction, may again escalate the use of force by tackling the individual and laying them face first on the ground. The individual may continue to engage in countercontrol by attempting to stand up, attempting to roll over onto their back, and yelling, “Let me go! I didn’t do anything! Don’t kill me! You are all bastards!” The officer, still attempting to gain control and compliance over the individual, may put their knee on the neck of the individual to silence them and stop them from moving. The individual may continue yelling and attempting to move away from the officer, to which, in turn, the officer responds by applying more pressure to the individual’s neck until that individual stops yelling and attempting to move.

These kinds of coercive interactions are documented in many departments’ use-of-force policies and procedures (Albuquerque Police Department, 2017; Atlanta Police Department, 2013; City of St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, 2014; Oakland Police Department, 2014), which state that force may be used to gain control of a situation and, rather than to prevent harm to themselves or others, to gain control of an arrest, to prevent a person suspected of a crime from fleeing, to prevent a crime, or to stop the person from resisting. Force, as documented in these policies, includes verbal persuasion, physical tactics, canines, batons and impact weapons, electronic control weapons (Tasers), chemical agents, and firearms or other lethal force. In summary, the policies and procedures of many police departments allow for coercion to be used to gain control of situations.

It is important to note that the pattern of coercive interactions described here does not take into consideration how these interactions may be different based on individual racial bias. If an officer also engages in racial bias, that officer would be more likely to engage in a coercive interaction with one individual as compared to another, not based on specific behavioral differences, but due to the difference in race. Data on the use of force by police officers when interacting with those who are Black and Brown versus those who are White suggest that racial bias plays a role in these interactions. For example, data on New York City’s stop-and-frisk program show that Black and Latinx individuals are more likely to have an interaction with the police that involves the use of force (e.g., slapping or grabbing individuals, pushing individuals into a wall or onto the ground) than White individuals (Fryer, 2016). Additional review of these data shows that the probability of the use of force is not related to the individual’s compliance with instructions (e.g., displaying identification) or whether the interaction occurred in a high- or low-crime area. Additionally, these data show that although instances of police drawing a weapon are much rarer, Black citizens are 21.3% more likely to be involved in an incident where a police officer draws a weapon than White citizens. This illustrates that although police officers are taught to engage in coercive interactions with the public, they are more likely to engage in coercion when interacting with a Black citizen. This may be the result of both individual racial bias and institutional racism. Individual racial bias is observed in the individual interaction that the officer has with a citizen. The pattern of responding of each individual officer can be traced, and when the officer engages in more instances of coercion and use of force with Black citizens than White citizens, individual racial bias is observed. However, institutionally, racism is upheld and reinforced when individual officers are not held accountable for racial bias. Police departments rarely collect data on interactions between police and citizens that do not result in arrests, making it almost impossible to identify whether racial bias exists and, subsequently, to provide feedback to the officer. Additionally, when data do provide evidence that racial bias exists, such as the data from New York City’s stop-and-frisk program, it does not lead to policy changes in how police officers are trained, provided with oversight, and receive feedback. This lack of feedback and correction allows the racially biased behaviors to continue, further perpetuating the problem.

Finally, police officers are largely given the responsibility to determine whether an individual is engaging in behavior that is criminal. This requires officers to make immediate decisions regarding people and their behavior. In America, the behaviors of those who are Black have been the focus of regulation throughout history. Taken together, this history of police regulating the behavior of Black individuals, which is further fueled by the behavioral principles previously referenced, illustrates that police officers are involved in the development and continuance of racism.

Although a detailed description of all the nuances of the development of biased behavior in the police force today is beyond the scope of this article, we hope we have provided enough description of the history of the police force and the potential motivation and reinforcers for biased police behavior to illustrate the complex nature of the problem, especially when one also considers the relationship between police departments, political leaders, and wealthy business owners. Although there continues to be much variance in the regulation of police behaviors across and within departments, one thing holds true: Police forces were established to regulate and continue to regulate the behavior of citizens to ensure those in political power and those who hold wealth keep it. This, paired with the variance in the regulation of police behaviors, allows more opportunity for biased responding. Bias, as defined previously, is the result of faulty stimulus control, meaning that the individual is attending to an irrelevant part of the stimulus. In racially biased responding, individuals are responding to differences in an individual’s skin tone, or race, rather than their behaviors. When police officers respond to an individual based on their race, rather than their observable behavior, results can be harmful. This is illustrated when a police officer observes a Black individual and a White individual engaging in similar behaviors yet determines the Black individual is engaging in “criminal” or “suspect” behavior. For example, a White citizen may question or refuse to comply with a demand from a police officer, and the officer may not respond with the use of force; however, a Black citizen may engage in this same behavior, and the officer may respond with the use of force. Although the two individuals may have been engaging in the same behavior, one is interpreted as not dangerous, whereas the other is interpreted as dangerous. Similarly, the results of these two interactions may be that the White individual is not arrested, whereas the Black individual is arrested. This is illustrated in various reports across the nation regarding arrest records and the discrepancies between White and Black Americans (Fite et al., 2015; Hinton, 2018). It is also observed in the differential rates of Black people being stopped and searched by police officers as opposed to White people (Williams, 2016). Arrests remove finances from the individual in a variety of ways including having to take time off work while in jail, losing a job due to being in jail, having to pay for bail or bond to get out of jail, hiring a lawyer, and paying fines, further upholding the function of racism. Whereas the justice system is responsible for determining whether individuals are convicted of crimes, police officers are responsible for introducing individuals into the justice system. By increasing the likelihood that someone who is Black enters the justice system, one is also increasing the likelihood that Black citizens will be convicted of a crime. This further removes finances and opportunities to gain economic wealth and political power, further perpetuating institutional racism. This type of differential responding of police officers is observed throughout different geographic regions and neighborhoods, as well as demographic variables including the socioeconomic status, religion, and gender of the individual citizen (Edwards et al., 2019; Statista, 2021; Woodrow, 2020).

So What Now?

Our review of the historical and present-day functions of the police force illustrates that the police force was developed to uphold and maintain institutional racism. It also illustrates ways in which the use of physical force can unnecessarily escalate a situation that is likely already influenced by racial bias against the citizen. This, paired with the individual learning histories of each individual within the police department, makes solving the problem of racism in the police force complex and difficult, as it involves complex and idiosyncratic learning histories of the individuals participating in the system, as well as systemic policies and need to be changed by those who may have little motivation to change them. Despite these challenges, there are some specific and immediate steps police chiefs could take to begin immediately counteracting and combating racism in their departments. Actions to combat individual racism include focusing on the accountability of individual officers and objectively clarifying behaviors defined as “criminal” or “suspect.” Actions to combat institutional racism include separating political influences within the police department, redeveloping policies and procedures as they relate to the use of force, and training. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that implement these recommendations, targeting both the behavior of individuals within the police force and the policies that govern the organizations. In conclusion, understanding the historical roots of institutional racism as part of the foundation of policing, as well as understanding how individual bias can affect the interactions that individual officers have with the public, can set the stage to develop and test practical interventions that hold the promise of contributing to a future of policing that will be more equitable and just.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.