Public image is an import concept to consider when examining both the role and consequences of police in a democratic society. How the public views the police can determine the legitimacy of police authority and citizen compliance with the law (Tyler and Huo 2002). It also influences the extent and quality of citizen cooperation and interaction with the police. Members of the public who have relatively negative views of the police may be less likely to participate in investigations or community meetings and may be less compliant toward police during routine and otherwise benign police-citizen contacts (for example, vehicle stops). In addition, while public images of the police are formed both objectively and subjectively, the public’s role in checking police authority depends on the formulation of a reasonably accurate image of the police and how they function (Skolnick and McCoy 1984).
There is no single coherent image of police in America. Mass media images of the police vary widely and are often inconsistent with the reality of policing (Surrette 1998). One can find, for example, images of the police ranging from the violent crime fighter (Dirty Harry, Magnum Force), to the good-natured incompetent buffoon (Chief Wigum, The Simpsons), to today’s technically savvy detective (Gil Grissom, CSI: Crime Scene Investigators). Even news media reports about the police represent a filtered, perhaps sensationalized, view of police work to the public.
Further, the police present various images of themselves to the public that can impact their public image. The police have always employed powerful symbols to promote images of authority and capacity for control over crime to maintain their legitimacy as social control agents (Manning 1977). Yet the dominant presentation of their work has shifted from a ”professional” image to more of a ”community-oriented” image during the last three decades. While the former image highlights the police as neutrally competent law enforcement experts, the latter emphasizes the police as responsive partners with the public concerned with overall quality of life. Nevertheless, these dominant general images depart to some extent from the reality of the police role and function, and may influence the kinds of services the public expects from the police.
Factors Influencing the Public Image of the Police
Relative to other professional groups or institutions in society, the public image of the police is generally positive. The public ranks the police consistently high among other institutions in terms of confidence, according to periodic national polls (Gallup Organization 2005). As an occupation, being a police officer also receives high marks for occupational prestige from the public (Harris Interactive 2004). For example, the police rank among other public service occupations (nurses, military officers, teachers, fire fighters, doctors, and scientists) that tend to contribute to the community or society at large. Although this general public image of the police is positive, the image varies according to social group and along specific dimensions.
Because fairness is a fundamental value for democratic policing, the public image of the police held by various racial groups has been a central issue of study. Public opinion polls and research commonly show that whites have a more favorable general opinion of the police than do members of racial minority groups (Decker 1981; Gallup Organization 2005; Reisig and Parks 2000; Tuch and Weitzer 1997). Indeed, national polls conducted by the Gallup Organization show typically that while a clear majority of whites have a ”great deal” or ”quite a lot” of confidence in the police, usually a minority of black respondents hold these positive assessments. Minority group members are also more likely than whites to perceive the police, both in general and with respect to their particular community’s department, as discriminatory or unfair in their treatment of nonwhite members of the public (see, for example, Tuch and Weitzer 2005; Rice and Piquero 2005).
In addition to observing racial differences, several studies have examined the role of gender, age, and social class in shaping public images of the police. Younger persons and males tend to be less satisfied with the police or view the police as discriminatory compared to other members of the public. While these negative evaluations may be the result of differential experience with the police, research has found these relationships to persist even after considering perceptions of specific encounters with the police (for example, Reisig and Parks 2000; Weitzer and Tuch 2005). The public image of the police does not appear to depend exclusively on an individual’s socioeconomic status once other explanations are taken into account. The effect of social class position may be partly a function of—or confounded by— community norms and the expectations of social status.
Research shows that public perceptions of police often are linked to the neighborhood context in which people reside (Dunham and Alpert 1988; Reisig and Giacomazzi 1998; Reisig and Parks 2000; Sampson and Bartusch 1998). Neighborhoods characterized by high levels of concentrated disadvantage are less satisfied with the police independent of individual differences (Reisig and Parks 2000; Sampson and Bartusch 1998). For example, Sampson and Bartusch found that in Chicago, neighborhood social and economic characteristics explained away the racial differences that exist in the public image held by whites and black residents. Moreover, Weitzer (1999) found that respondents from a poor, black neighborhood felt that they were treated less fairly by the police compared to residents of affluent white neighborhoods and residents of a middle-class, black neighborhood. The differences according to neighborhood context may be attributable to actual differential treatment, perceptions of control over the police bureaucracy, or entrenched norms that develop in different areas as others have speculated (Weitzer 1999; Sampson and Bartusch 1998).
The quality of direct experiences with police agencies also shapes the way the public views the police. Citizens who come into contact with the police as suspects or have poor experiences with the police tend to have less favorable views of the police compared to people who report crimes or are otherwise assisted by the police (Reisig and Parks 2000; Reisig and Chandek 2001). It is important to note that citizens’ preconceived image of the police and their appropriate role influences the assessment of specific contacts they have with the police (Brandl et al. 1994). If a preconceived image of the police influences how one evaluates police contacts, it may be a challenge for the police to improve the public assessment of their contacts by changing the way they interact with the public.
Such difficulties notwithstanding, people who perceive they have a voice in the mobilization of crime control bureaucracies, are familiar with their police, or believe the police distribute resources fairly to their neighborhood are more likely than others to hold positive impressions of both police efficiency and effectiveness (Sunshine and Tyler 2004). Each of these is an area in which police departments may be able to have a profound impact through changes in administrative practices.
Finally, the public image of the police can change in reaction to publicized events or highly scrutinized police actions. In Los Angeles as well as across the nation, public favorability toward the police declined substantially after the well-publicized Rodney King incident, according to polls (Tuch and Weitzer 1997). Although the police image held by the majority public often demonstrates some resiliency after such high-profile negative events by returning to pre-event levels within a few years, minority group members’ attitudinal reactions to police brutality and discrimination are often more enduring. In contrast, highly public events that demonstrate police courage or heroism can often produce what some scholars call a ”halo effect,” in which the public’s image of the police becomes abruptly and sharply positive. Perhaps the quintessential example occurred in the wake of September 11, 2001, where the entire police occupation— not just the New York Police Department and the other public services agencies directly involved in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks—enjoyed an almost simultaneous increase in positive public sentiment legitimacy. (Anecdotal evidence suggests that employment applications to police departments also rose dramatically after 9/11, providing further evidence of an elevated public image.)
Implications for the Public Image of the Police
Variability in the public’s image of the police can have substantial consequences for policing in America. As the evidence suggests, when the image of the police is highly negative, legitimacy can suffer to the point where noncompliance becomes the norm rather than exception during police-citizen encounters. Similarly, when the police enjoy a halo effect, the public may fail to challenge police practices and strategies that may violate democratic principles. In the case of the former, police officers may become injured at high rates as suspect resistance increases concomitantly with declining respect for police authority. In the case of the latter, members of the public may become injured as the police distribute coercive force unequally across communities in the forms of aggressive arrest strategies, deployment of officers, and even excessive force. Thus, to ensure constructive and effective police functioning, a proper dose of ”healthy skepticism” of practices and intentions should provide the balance between illegitimacy and unquestioned trust. Healthy skepticism allows the police to accomplish their public safety goals with the general consent of the public, while requiring them to periodically justify their policies and account for their strategies.
