For a long time now, the police have often sought to play a comprehensive role in curbing insecurity cases across various states. Nevertheless, the efforts made by the police have and continue to remain futile due to the manner in which the public perceive the police force. Worth noting is the fact that the police are often perceived differently across various settings. One of the major perceptions that the police have received is that they are warriors. This perception is accredited to what is often referred to as militarization of the police. While it is true that the police are comparable to warriors, it is essential to note that the police are security agents who use all that is within their limits to assure that there is peace and harmony across different contexts (Verma et al., 2012). As such the police should be compared to warriors.
There are various reasons that justify the reasons as to why the police should not be compared to warriors. More importantly, treating the police as warriors will precipitate resistance from the public. This is because warriors are considered to be violent people sent to the battle field to fight enemies. In fact, treating the police as warriors will prompt the public to develop notions that they are considered enemies to the police. Such labeling of the public is intolerable and misplaced as it will hinder the achievement of the core purposes that the police seek to achieve. In fact, such labeling will trigger negativity to the police by the public. In addition, comparing police offices to warriors will make the police officers to view the public as enemies and not citizens entitled to certain rights (Wagner, 2009). As a result, the police may end up mistreating citizens because they are “enemies.”
In addition, the police should not be compared to warriors because such a comparison directly subordinates the police. Definitely, the police constitute a group of well trained and educated personnel; with adequate knowledge on how to manage security matters in the society. On the contrary, warriors constitute a group of people with little or no training on how to carry out war. For this reason, comparing professional police officers with warriors makes the police seem like a mere force than it is. Notably, such comparison de-motivates police offices; hence, making them to lag in their duties. On another note, treating the police as warriors is not advisable because it disregards to initial notions that prompted the establishment of the police. The police was established as a government arm aimed at helping restore order in the society (Wagner, 2009). Therefore, treating the police as warriors disregards the core goal the lead to the establishment of the police.
Similarly, the police should not be compared to warriors because such a comparison conflicts with rationale of Community-Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS). The COPPS paradigm asserts that the police should seek to develop strategies that limit the occurrence if proactive crimes. Part of these strategies includes creating mutual relationship between the police and citizens (Verma et al., 2012). Arguably, comparing the police to warriors hinders the establishment of ample partnerships between the police and citizens, which will jeopardize the attainment of purposes postulated by the COPPS paradigm. Overall, the COPPS rationale seeks to bring reforms to the policing sector by use of strategies that prevent crime. These strategies are only applicable in situations where there is good relationship between the police and the citizens. In conclusion, comparing the police with warriors hinders the progresses sough to be attained by the COPPS initiative.
Wagner, B. (2009). Disturbing the peace: Black culture and the police power after slavery. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Verma, A., Das, D., and Abraham, M. (2012). Global Community Policing: Problems and Challenges. London: CRC Press.