|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
period's growth and reform: the progressive movement and new technologies. The progressive movement, as it applied to government, was based on three basic ideas: (1) honesty and efficiency in government, (2) more authority for public officials (and less for politicians), and (3) the use of experts to respond to specific problems (Roberg et al., 2000, p. 45). New technologies involved the use of the latest scientific equipment to investigate crime and the employment of other state-of-the-art innovations such as the use of call boxes, two-way radios, and motor vehicles. Because this era was influenced by the principles of industrial and scientific management, which placed a strong emphasis on the efficiency and effectiveness of bureaucracies, its philosophy permeated the organization and operations of most police departments to include the need for increased training. Collectively, this opened the door toward adopting the professional model of policing3 (Walker & Katz, 2005).
By the 1920s, attempts at reform on the local, state, and federal levels were beginning to have an impact, particularly given the influence of President Herbert Hoover's National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (1929–1932). A significant part of the commission's report was the product of volume 11 of the Wickersham Commission Report, entitled Lawlessness in Law Enforcement, and volume 14, The Police. The Wickersham Commission Report was a 14-volume report that addressed, among other things, “the pervasive political corruption of the time, police brutality, officer's low intelligence, poor education, overwork, and poor training. Prominent police authors, administrators, and commissioners felt compelled to voice their opinions with regard to the purpose, length and content of the academy curricula” (Brand & Peak, 1995, 46; Bailey, 1995, p. 822). Underscoring the importance of the commission's call 5 years later, Vollmer was once again “moved to describe the deplorable quality of police officers and their training” (Brand & Peak, p. 47). Expressing his contempt and frustration at the unprofessional character of the police, he contemptuously wrote of what he described as “daily demonstrations of police incompetency [where] no one apparently cares to heed the lesson they should teach”