As the World Changes, So Must Law Enforcement

When someone says, “We have always done it this way,” it causes me instant irritation. The empty statement, void of context and forethought, almost always tells me all I need to know; they have no idea “why.” Most times these statements are used as an argument to justify, without any actual justification. It becomes an almost circular argument. We have always done it this way, which justifies us doing it because we have always done it this way. It is the argument of ‘tradition.’

Oxford Dictionary defines ‘tradition’ as: “the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.”

I am not here to say traditions are wrong. We should strive to pass down knowledge so as not to make the same mistakes. I am not here to say the way something is or has been done previously is not the right way, it might very well be. What I am here to say is that the “argument” of tradition is hollow. In law enforcement, this is a very common statement, and calling it an argument is a disgrace in my opinion. 

Tradition in uniform and appearance is one of the most common places. Every suggestion of a more comfortable, practical, and healthier uniform immediately hits the walls of tradition. Every single suggested change must somehow conform to “The way we have always done it.” Speaking for my own department, this statement is quite frankly ignorant (a word I do not use often). Just because it is the way YOU have always done it, does not mean it is the way the institution has always done it. Anyone who walks the halls of our training center can see the continuous changes to our uniform. 

Everything about our uniform has changed over time. Our badge, our hat, our shirts, our pants, our belt, and so on and so forth.

I find changing things for the sake of changing them also wholeheartedly incorrect. Changing things for the sake of changing them can be just as detrimental and dangerous as tradition for tradition’s sake.  Very little in law enforcement should ever be done for the mere sake of doing it. Doing things for the sake of doing them can be dangerous and costly to time, money, and, most importantly, lives. 

What I propose is not a novel idea, it is actually the foundation of our very legal and constitutional system. We must examine the “why” through the pros and cons and justify everything. We must document the reasons why and stop avoiding confrontation. We need to admit we can be wrong and more importantly, change our minds. The world constantly changes, and so must law enforcement. In a way, we must apply the scientific model (observe a problem, research, hypothesis, test, analyze data, conclusion- with an added step of reevaluation) to each and every ‘tradition’ or proposed change. We live in The Golden Age of Data Collection, especially in law enforcement.

Applying this model not only helps ensure the best possible outcomes but also forces us to reevaluate as conditions change. It helps us build a foundation and mental framework from which to move forward. We need not research a topic cold, we simply refer to the previous analysis, which is why they should be accessible to fellow officers within the department. I cannot tell you how often officers question a policy or training, and someone justifies it simply as tradition or “How the brass wants it done.” This builds resentment and non-compliance. 

If officers are able to access well-thought-out analysis, they are more likely to accept the policy, or possibly identify a change to improve it. It is understanding the “why” and avoiding the perception (or reality) of arbitrary ‘reasons.’ I understand this is more of a rant than a well-crafted argument (which I would gladly provide, with scientific references and real-world examples). Frankly, I think most readers know exactly what I am talking about. 

If you are reading this and think I am crazy, go back to your department and look into its institutional history. See what has changed. Ask yourself why you don’t carry a revolver as a primary weapon, use a radio rather than a whistle or call box, or carry equipment like IFAKs, tasers, OC spray, etc. These items were once controversies that threatened tradition, and yet, they are all modern police officers have ever known.

___________________________

Jake Smith is a law enforcement officer and former Army Ranger with four deployments to Afghanistan.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.